Barnaby Joyce gave the “pro-life” game away with a question he asked during the Senate Committee hearing into the availability of RU486:
“IF I shoot a woman and don’t kill her but kill the baby, I haven’t actually committed a crime?”
This bizarre question was posed in yesterday’s Senate hearing into abortion pill RU486 by pro-life Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce.
Roslyn Dundas, appearing on behalf of the pro-choice Women’s Electoral Lobby, answered that, yes, it was most certainly a crime to shoot a woman, pregnant or not.
Senator Joyce was raising a pivotal question: at what stage in a pregnancy does the embryo have rights of its own distinct from the mother’s right over her body?
No. Senator Joyce was actually letting slip the anti-abortion lobby’s indifference to the lives, health and welfare of women. The full report in today’s Age also shows Steven Fielding and Julian McGauran making arses of themselves.
He’s a right doofus, isn’t he?
Barnaby, The answer is yes, it is a crime: it’s called something like aggrivated assault or causing grievous bodily harm.
Next question.
ABC news from yesterday:
Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott says it would be inappropriate to allow Health Department public servants to decide if RU-486 should be publicly available.
A conscience vote on the issue will take place in the New Year.
Mr Abbott says politicians are democratically accountable and therefore better placed to make moral judgments than public servants.
“They have a better idea of the scientific arguments but in the end it’s not just the science that should determine our decision on these matters,” he said.
“There’s a whole range of ethical and social considerations which are important here.”
http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1531430.htm
What next – a parliamentary vote on the therapeutic uses of morphine? There are a few ethical and social considerations there too.
It’s not hard to guess what was promised to Fielding to get him to bend over on the VSU legislation, is it?
I think the intoxicating power of the majority in both houses plus the fanaticism of Liberals like Abbott etc on these personal crusades (and they will bring up more of them), might begin the unravelling of the discipline the party has exhibited since ‘96.
There has to be a point where Liberal and National members who have a conscious say enough is enough.
it’s called something like aggrivated assault or causing grievous bodily harm
… or perhaps unlawful wounding, attempted murder, or a number of other things.
Yes isn’t it nasty to believe killing a foetus when the woman’s life isn’t in danger !
Choice a wonderful word.
Nasty? Dunno. Inarticulate? Definitely.
You can complicate it further by noting that a foetus has certain civil rights in utero, such as being owed a duty of care. I hate the abortion debate because I hold inconsistent convictions about it (who said, “I am Legion, I contain multitudes”?). It is just wrong to deny women control over their own bodies, but the idea of a late term abortion because you’ve changed your mind is extremely disquieting. My default position is that its up to the individual, but I don’t think I could take to the streets on it. Plus, the debate often descends (as so many do, including many on this site) into the demonising or lionising of the foetus. Describing it as a parasite or a clump of cells will not win people over. But, in my view, its also not a full human being at 4 weeks, or even at 20 weeks if there’s something seriously wrong with it. I think you’ll find many, many people are similarly uncomfortable and conflicted. I’m very glad that the battle lines here are not as intense and public as they are in the US.
Bismarck, I agree that the conversations in Australia are more measured than in the US, and I appreciate your thoughtful contribution.
I also agree that the idea of “a late term abortion because you’ve changed your mind is extremely disquieting”. We should remember that “late” abortions are not at all common. I really don’t think that there are many people out there “changing their mind” on a whim late in a pregnancy – and I have done research on the issue (although a few years ago now).
The one woman I personally know who had what would be considered a late abortion did so because her child was diagnosed with a particulary nasty genetic abnormality. The most likely outcome was that he would die in utero. He was almost certain to die during labour, should he survive the term. I can understand the view that the right thing to do in the circumstances is to let the child die naturally, but I can’t understand how people feel entitled to make that decision for others.
As for Barnaby, I don’t have words to say …
As it is, the vast majority of abortions occur before 12 weeks, suggesting that the majority of women who get an abortion consider that their cut-off point. Most women who get abortions after the 20 week cut-off don’t do it because they’ve changed their mind about having a child, they do it for medical or psychological reasons. And they’re a tiny, tiny minority — less than two percent of abortions occur after 20 weeks.
Anyway, one of the benefits of RU-486 is that it will enable women to have abortions earlier — the cut off for a medical abortion is seven weeks, RU-486 can be taken as soon as a woman knows she’s pregnant at say, four weeks.
It’s frustrating to hear the pollies who are anti-RU-486 bringing it back, yet again, to medical supervision. Of course you need medical supervision! It’sa ridiculous straw man argument that suggests that people in rural and regional Australia are complete idiots unable to make even basic decisions about medical care.
As for Barnaby’s absurd question, perhaps Homer you could consider it this way: is it wrong for a surgeon to give a man a vasectomy against his wishes? Why yes it is. Is it wrong for a man to have a vasectomy if he wants to? No, of course not. It’s not about the objective status of the embryo, it’s about the woman who is carrying the embryo.
I know you see a substantive difference between an embryo and a fetus with a man’s vas deferens, Homer, but I don’t. I don’t see a fetus under 20 weeks as being the same thing as a baby, or having the same rights or status as a post-partum child. I don’t see a 7 week old embryo as being fully human. It has the potential to become a full human — but only with the hard work and risk of physical harm to a woman’s body. It takes a woman to grow a baby. It’s not something that magically happens without a woman’s input in any way.
This is a frustrating debate for me because anti-abortion people seem so concerned with the rights of the fetus that they forget the woman. Hello, there’s a person there who’s body is being used to grow the fetus. This is not an inconsiderable task. It takes nine months and a woman’s body changes so much during the process.
Bismarck, what an extremely clear and sane statement of a clear and sane position. FWIW I think you’d find that ‘a late term abortion just because you’ve changed your mind’ is something that not a lot of other people would endorse either.
On the other hand I’ve got an awful feeling it was the Devil who said ‘I am Legion, I contain multitudes’ so you’d better not tell T. Abbott.
I think the Devil said ‘I am Legion,’
Walt Whitman’s line is: Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.
Also, Bismarck, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.
It’s been at the forefront of my mind lately, because my wife’s 22 weeks. We got a high risk assessment (1 in 50) for Downs and other chromosonal disorders. A CVS was recommended at 16 weeks, but after much agonising we decided to postpone it to an amnio at 20 weeks because the miscarriage risk of the CVS was nearly as high as there being a chromosomal disorder. We thought long and hard about what to do if the amnio came back positive and agreed that the pregnancy would have to stop. It was no fun at all, especially because the baby started kicking just on 20 weeks. Thankfully, the tests came back OK. I don’t envy anyone in that situation. I think a lot of the abortion debate (on both sides, and I’d rather not even think about Barnaby at the moment) is just not handled thoughtfully enough.
Kate – I don’t think the issue would be as nearly controversial if it was just a matter of 9 months of a woman’s life. Its not – for many its a lifetime of emotional and financial attachment and obligation. And not all of this goes away with adoption either.
One of the fundamental difficulties I have with abortion is the feeling that it is a step towards valuing a human life based on whether other people want/love it, and it not having an intrinsic value initself.
For example, at least in some states in the US a person can be charged with murder if they attack a pregnant woman causing her to abort. I would argue that many people in Australia would agree with that approach, and many more would believe that the penalties associated with assault or grevious bodily harm would be insufficient in that case. However, if that same woman were instead to voluntarily have an abortion, many of the same people would find this acceptable.
At the same time, having seen first hand severely disabled children and what they and their families experience, I can understand why people have abortions when they discover severe abnormalities during pregnancy. There perhaps is even an a valid argument for euthanasia of the very severely disabled who survive birth. I wonder how many abortions are carried out because people know that there will be no legal way to end the suffering of their child (or family) after it is born if it turns out to be as bad or worse than the doctors believe during pregnancy..
Congratulations to you and your wife, Bismarck, and good luck with it all.
Another issue is the way that foetal testing is seen by many people as a chance to ‘have a look at the baby’*, or done without much consideration of their diagnostic purpose – when the tests are often invasive, have significant risks and may place people in the miserable position you found yourself in with little forewarning or preparation.
* Like I did!
Barnaby, return Alien and The Exorcist to the video shop, mate, they’re not doing you any favours.
Don’t chalk Legion up to me, I just possessed the fella.
But thanks for the thoughts, everyone, I appreciate it.
Congratulations Bismarck.
Chris, you’re right about the intrinsic value of a human being — and I can see what you’re saying. It is a problematic matter and it is worth discussing, I think.
For me, however, it’s not a matter of an egg and a sperm coming together and hey presto! you have a human being. The process of pregnancy is a fraught one and as many as 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. The line between pregnant and not is an easy one to demarcate: there’s a wonderful blog called ‘A Little Pregnant’ where a woman has documented her IVF sessions which shows just how difficult it is to say when a woman is pregnant, when a pregnancy is viable etc etc.
My point is that pregnancy is a process that is a huge effect on a woman — and having a child obvs. is a big deal for the rest of your life, as you point out — and it’s one I think women should have as much control over as possible. As with all reproductive choices, I think individuals should have as much say as is possible.
Back to the point about children: any women have abortions not because they don’t want a child in future, but because they can’t see themselves giving the child the life it deserves in the present. I think women take the choice whether or not to abort very seriously, which is something that gets lost in all the noise about it.
And as someone who has a close family member who is disabled, I know exactly how much of a toll it can take on parents.
we had two boys.
We were advised to have the tests because of age and we said no.
The specialist said what if the baby has downs syndrome?
We said so what.
of course in Melbourne having dwarfism is now okay to abort
I am glad for you, Homer.
As I understand it the Melbourne case you referred to was done for psychiatric maternal indications, not a foetal one.
Kate wrote:
“Back to the point about children: any women have abortions not because they don’t want a child in future, but because they can’t see themselves giving the child the life it deserves in the present. I think women take the choice whether or not to abort very seriously, which is something that gets lost in all the noise about it.”
Indeed. Further to this, and in response to a point Chris made, the decision on whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy to full term and bring a new person into the world is fraught with responsibility for the kind of life that the future person will be able to have. I say this on the basis of experience, having 17 years ago supported my then partner’s decision to terminate a pregnancy. In the light of our circumstances at the time, and subsequent events, not terminating the pregnancy would have been a highly irresponsible decision.
Of course there are those who believe that a foetus, even in the first trimester and even in the period within which RU486 is usually administered, is a human person whose moral considerability is equal to that of an adult woman. Whilst not wishing to, in Bismarck’s words, demonise the foetus, the fact remains that it is not capable, even in principle, of being a person until the 24th week of pregnancy when the cerebral synapses begin to function and consciousness becomes possible.
I think this is one of the places where the misunderstanding between the two main sides of the debate lies. There has been a bit of debate recently about use of the word unwanted, because it isn’t always the most appropriate word. Personally, I still use it because no-one has come up with a better one that is convenient for debating purposes, but I think it’s important that when people use it they are aware of how limiting a word it can be.
I don’t believe that abortion is OK because the foetus has no value. I think abortion is OK because it’s not OK to force a woman to keep another person alive – even a fully grown adult doesn’t have this “right to use the body of another”.
That’s why shooting a fetus in someone else’s body, in addition to be a crime for all the reasons Rob mentioned, can be treated as a crime without inconsistency – because it doesn’t have anything to do with the shooter’s bodily autonomy. The shooter has killed a potential person. The woman having an abortion has choosen not to be pregnant.
Anna – Consider the theoretical situation of adult conjoined twins. Say that one of them is dependent on the other one to survive, but in their current situation, whilst there is some health risk, they are not in any immediate danger. If one of them decided that they wanted to be separated, even if it meant the certain death of the other, would you consider that to be ok?
In response to: “I think abortion is OK because it’s not OK to force a woman to keep another person alive – even a fully grown adult doesn’t have this “right to use the body of anotherâ€?.
Does that mean that in cases where it is possible to deliver the foetus alive (with a reasonable chance of surviiving) that you believe that option should be taken instead of abortion? Its quite conceivable in a few years time that very young foetuses may be transferred to artificial wombs – perhaps a great benefit to those who have difficulties with miscarriages, but as a side effect present society with another dilemma to consider.
Would that it were possible, but it just ain’t.
Homer, in the dwarfism case the staff tried everything they could (over a period weeks) to persuade the mother to proceed with the pregnancy but they really thought she was going to hurl herself out the window, and she was on the verge of psychosis. It’s tragic, and devastating, but it was an extraordinary scenario, and should not be used by politicians or bloggers to score cheap points.
But Chris, who would pay for the artificial womb of an unwanted child? Who would raise the child? Who would be responsible for feeding in all the nutrients into the womb? It takes more than a womb to make a human being.
I’m not saying it won’t happen, but there’s a host of ethical issues that we’ll need to work through if/when we get there.
The conjoined twins scenario is a bit like the ticking bomb terrorist scenario. It’s a nice way to spend a few hours debating with your stoned uni mates, but it has very little bearing for real decisions made by real women, where you’re not talking about two adults, but a group of cells with the potential to become a human, and an adult human.
I do think that abortions after 20 weeks are currently handled in the correct way by our society — most of them need to be vetted by a number of medical practicioners.
The case of the woman with the baby who has dwarfism is tragic and it is the worst possible outcome, and I don’t think any pro-choice individual would see it any other way.
Does that mean that in cases where it is possible to deliver the foetus alive (with a reasonable chance of surviiving) that you believe that option should be taken instead of abortion?
I have no idea what I would do in that situation. What I do know, is that I would rather it be a decision made by family, doctors and possibly the Hospital’s ethics board. Not Barnaby Joyce or Tony Abbott.
And even in the three percent of abortions that fall into that category, I don’t think it’s ever a case of – “well, we could deliver it alive, but let’s not, eh?”. It’s a complex decision based on what is best for the mother in terms of her health and her chance of conceiving and giving birth in the future, and the chances of survival of the foetus.
And, like Kate said – interesting thought experiments, but they’re unlikely to give us any new answers to the abortion debate. You mentioned that you were uncomfortable with assigning the foetus no value. I was answering that the pro-choice argument does no such thing. Saying that this potential person has no thoughts, no current ability to desire to be born etc etc is not the same as saying it has no value.
Kate – GIven initially it would be very expensive I imagine the government would pick up the costs (just like would happen if it was done to avoid miscarriage for example), just like the government (sort of ) does for people who can’t look after themselves now. If it was cheap enough in the future I could see the biological parents being responsible for the cost.
Being able to transfer a foetus to an artifical womb removes the issue of forcing women to physically support the foetus with their body. The emotional and financial component is something that we have an example for already – men and other non custodial parents are (at least meant to be) financially responsible for their children whether or not they wanted them during the pregnancy.
As for the claim of unwanted – whilst I understand that there is a shortage of people wanting to adopt older children, I believe there is quite an unfulfilled demand for babies. But just talking about “unwanted” again, comes back to one of my original points about valuing human life based on if anyone else “wants” it.
In the case of the dwarfism – would it have been better to deliver the foetus instead of abort it (was it at an age where it could have survived)? We do have existing ways of handling abandoned children.
Perhaps society simply can’t afford the cost of looking after “unwanted” babies, in which case we need to just say so and be upfront about it. But the current debate gets clouded by so many issues, I find it difficult to see on what basis the laws and medical guidelines are being made,
Chris, laws are being made on what we can do NOW, not potential future technology that may or may not be viable (or even acceptable in future — look at the debate about IVF).
Again, the thing is, you see a fetus at any stage of development as being morally the same thing as a post-partum child. I don’t. Most medical practitioners also see the difference. A seven week old embryo is not the same thing as a eight month old fetus, which isn’t the same thing as a one month old baby.
So I think we’re not even coming from the same starting point, which makes it difficult.
Barnaby Joyce’s bizarre and naive question shows a pervasive lack of understanding and insensitivity of the underlying issues, as is so typical and expected of the anti-choice movement.
If you shoot a woman you will go to jail, full stop. It is a moot point whether causing a woman to lose her baby will result in an additional sentence; in some jurisdictions they can be charged with second-degree murder. This year in California, the wife-slayer Scott Peterson was convicted of second-degree murder of his unborn son “Baby Conner Peterson” in addition to the first-degree murder of his wife Laci. Otherwise, it may well result in an increased sentence in addition to grievous bodily harm or attempted murder. The notion of whether the woman wanted to carry her baby to term here is totally irrelevant. The psychological damage done to her in such an event cannot be underestimated.
Also my few cents worth: at a conference which featured both sides of the debate, I once listened to an apparently passion-filled speech by Denise Cameron, then secretary of Right-To-Life Victoria, woven with half-truths and idiosyncracies but clearly designed to portray herself as an angelic being. A few weeks later, I saw a letter by the same Denise Cameron in the Age newspaper on the refugees on Tampa – suggesting something like drown them all! Seems like the anti-choice movement aren’t really pro-life after all.
All these ‘What if…?’ scenarios are reminding me of the classic jingoist question put to WW1 pacifists being tried for their conscientious objection: ‘But what would you do if a German tried to rape your sister?’ (See other threads for parallel issues here.)
The subtext is ‘See, your crackpot beliefs can’t deal with my hypothetical scenario, therefore you’re wrong and I’m right.’
(I have always loved the reply of Lytton Strachey, well-known “bugger” as he himself habitually put it, when asked this question by some indignant red-faced British Army type: “I should try to interpose my body between them.”)
Kate – actually I don’t see a fetus at any stage of development as being morally the same thing. I don’t think I would classify a one month old fetus as a “human being”, but I think I probably would classify an 8 month old fetus as one. No, I don’t know where to “draw the line”.
I realise laws are primarily made about what we can do now, but at the same time I think its worth thinking about framing them so they fit into the future better. We’ve seen how laws fail so badly to keep up with technology in other areas (copyright for example).
I wouldn’t like to see abortion banned, but at the same time I do feel that under certain circumstances that its the “wrong” thing to do. I can see that there is an inconsistency in my own beliefs and want to understand them better.
Pavlov’s Cat – As for “what if” scenarios, I think that thought experiments can be useful in clarifying why people support certain views. Which are the arguments that are presented because they are convenient (say given current technological capabilities), and what represent the core beliefs the person – eg. Abortion is wrong for any reason, or Abortion is always ok if desired, no matter what alternatives may be possible.
For late term abortions – I’d like to know more about the basis upon which the medical decisions are made. What are the various weightings given to the health of the woman vs the health of the fetus. If its possible to “save” both, but could damage the psychological health of the woman would this be an acceptable outcome?
Is there any concern that In a very litigous world that doctors and ethics boards would be concerned about who is more likely to sue them afterwards? (Eg a woman who did not want to complete her pregnancy versus a terminated fetus).
Chris, I appreciate you trying to have a reasonable discussion.
I don’t know if this is what you’re getting at, but I’ll try to explain my reasoning.
I think it’s a dangerous, patronising game to assume there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ reasons for an abortion. You’re essentially saying to women that they aren’t to be trusted making medical decisions for themselves.
Raped and pregnant — okay, that’s a good reason, You can have an abortion.
17, pregnant and terrified of abusive boyfriend — sorry, not good enough. Go to the adoption room.
37, married, pregnant, already has three children, can’t imagine having another one — nope, you’ve got to have the baby.
Either you think abortion is acceptable or it’s not. If you think an abortion is an acceptable way to end a pregnancy, then you have to accept to some women will use it to end pregnancies in way that you’re not comfortable with. Say, because they just don’t want to have a baby.
Which is enough of a reason for me, personally. But if we start saying: “okay, women can only have abortions if they’ve been raped or if there’s been incest or if they’re going to die otherwise” then we’re saying some abortions are better than others. We’re saying that the REASON is more important that the physiological status of the fetus. There’s no difference between a fetus conceived in a loving healthy relationship or a fetus conceived by rape: it’s just genes. So if you believe aborting the first fetus is wrong; but the second somehow acceptable, I think there’s a lapse in logic there.
The difference is in the woman and whether she wants to carry the fetus to term or not — and what I’m saying is that her bodily integrity trumps the rights of the fetus. I don’t believe a fetus’s rights should trump a womans before the third trimester because I don’t believe a fetus is a fully-fledged human life until about the 28th week mark.
I also think that if a woman gets to say, 8 and a half month’s term, and there’s some horrible problem, most doctors are going to try and save both lives. I also think that if a woman gets to this stage and wants an abortion for psychological reasons, she probably shouldn’t have one. But I think it should be judged situation by situation — which is exactly what happens.
And sorry, I may be dense but I don’t know how an aborted fetus can sue anyone?
I think perhaps that Chris was implying that doctors may choose abortion rather than risk a severely disabled child who could then sue for “wrongful birth”.
I think he’d find that since there’s usually a panel of other doctors involved in such a decision so late in the pregnancy that, no, that isn’t an issue.
“You’re essentially saying to women that they aren’t to be trusted making medical decisions for themselves.”
I believe at some point during the pregnancy it moves from a medical decision for themselves to one for themselves and “something” that an increasing number of people (as you get later in the pregnancy) to be morally equivalent to a human being. I think its at that point where its appropriate for society to be permitted to intervene to represent the rights of the fetus. From what you wrote after that I think you basically agree there.
Perhaps we don’t disagree that much after all. But I am curious if your belief that a fetus is a fully fledged human life around 28 weeks based on the development or because its at about the time when modern medicine is now able to get a good result from premature babies born at this time. Eg. in your view could this move earlier into the pregnancy in the future?
” And sorry, I may be dense but I don’t know how an aborted fetus can sue anyone?”
That was really my point – proceeding with an abortion presents no legal risk of getting sued by an aborted fetus, whereas delivering the fetus against a woman’s wishes may do so.
Of course very early preemies present a challenge — but at this stage the earliest premature babies that can survive are born at is around 25 weeks, as I understand it.
Yes, I do think there needs to be medical/ethical input from a certain stage, and I put that at the third trimester or around 24 weeks. A child after this stage is certainly viable.
No, I don’t think we disagree but I think we need to separate third trimester abortions from the vast majority of abortions: those done before 12 weeks.
Billy Connolly describes the idea of letting a church tell you what is right and wrong about sex as “Why would you ask the fuck-less?”
A similar problem exists for the abortion debate. There are men such as Abbott and Joyce who think it is their right to tell women how to behave with their own bodies. And I suspect the debate here is doing a similar thing.
Many people cannot accept that at birth, a baby’s legal rights begin to exist. Everyone thinks an arbitary line should be drawn at which rights commence? There. One exists.
As for Joyce’s silly comment – depending on the circumstances, there’s a kabillion potential laws he could violate in shooting a pregnant woman. As well as assualt, attempted murder, firearms violations and whatever else, in some states, there are laws that make forcing the death of a foetus illegal. I cannot believe this doofus is paid to make law, when he clearly doesn;t even understand the existing ones.
Aurelius,
Billy Connolly is speaking out of his armpit.
For Christians sex is as vital as for any other human being. “The wedding bed is undefiled’ is a direct referrence to sexual intercourse. “Let your fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of your youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and be ravished always with her love”, “drink waters out of your own cistern, and running waters of your own well” are highly sensual phrases”. Read the Song of Solomon!
What does Billy think God meant when he said, “Be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth”? Just because one church group forbids their ‘priests’ from marrying doesn’t make all Christians asexual. Abortion is an emotive issue. There is a moral and ethical side to this, and the debate shouild be revised continually as medical science develops. There certainly needs to be a higher degree of accountibility.
There certainly needs to be a higher degree of accountibility.
facelift, who should be more accountable? to whom? and who’s the judge?
i think you actually mean you want there to be more judgement.
(keyboard is struggling with capitals, apologies)
“I think abortion is OK because it’s not OK to force a woman to keep another person alive – even a fully grown adult doesn’t have this right to use the body of another.” – Anna
While I am pro-choice and understand Anna’s motive, this argument does not cut it.
All parents are legally forced to keep other people alive from the day they are born until some years later. (At great cost and effort.) There are penalties for not doing so.
So the question revolves (obviously) around when the entity is a person and when it is still not quite. I can easily imagine the mindset of those who say they regard foetuses and embyros to be “human”. So while I do not aree with them I think it is a mistake to become unnecessarily adversarial about these different positions. The argument based on the right of women to control their bodies is unfruitful because anti-abortionists merely ask about the rights of the unborn body.
Anti-abortionists have to accept the rights of others to their different views. They cannot expect to enforce their position on the rest of us. No matter how upsetting it is for them. And pro-choicers need to avoid caricaturing the opposition as hate-filled religious nutjobs or patriarchal possessors of the female domain. (Those who are that, should be ignored to avoid derailment of conversation.)
“The argument based on the right of women to control their bodies is unfruitful because anti-abortionists merely ask about the rights of the unborn body.”
Bollocks. No-one has a right to be born, and you can’t say that feeding and clothing a child is the same as having it inside you for 9 months feeding off you.
I see no reason to minimise the rights of women just because some people don’t think we should have them. I’m tired of the view that we have to “reframe” our language to appeal to the anti-choicers.
Zoe,
‘i think you actually mean you want there to be more judgement.’
If I’d wanted to say that I’d have said it. You shouldn’t change my wording to suit your position.
Since there is still debate about whether a foetus has any kind of rights, there should be a record of terminations, and the reasons for termination, just in the same way there is a register of deaths. That’s what I mean by accountability.
I’m more interested in the concept of saving lives (including from conception) than judging people who engage in terminations, including saving the life of a threatened mother.
There is a record of curettage of the pregnant uterus (whether to induce an abortion, after a miscarriage, or for some other gynae reason) if it is claimed on medicare.
At present, two doctors must agree that a termination is indicated. There ain’t no other medical procedure which requires that, ie the standard of “accountability” for abortion is already higher.
in the dwarfism case the staff tried everything they could (over a period weeks) to persuade the mother to proceed with the pregnancy but they really thought she was going to hurl herself out the window, and she was on the verge of psychosis. It’s tragic, and devastating, but it was an extraordinary scenario, and should not be used by politicians or bloggers to score cheap points.
Might I point out also, that this case occurred in 2000 – five years ago – and Julian McGauran, who has disgracefully made political capital out of it, hasn’t been able to come up with any juicy examples occurring before or since. As Naomi pointed out, it was a hard and complex case for the people involved and probably not one which will be repeated in their lifetime. So to say “late term abortion is OK for dwarfism these days” is, yes, just cheap. And it would be funny (if it wasn’t so disgusting) that McGauran and cohorts, lacking evidence of women getting late term abortions right left and centre, keep coming back to this one example.