Abortion: Law and Opinion Across the World

[Occams Barber]

Abortion: Law and Public Opinion Across the World

Given that Forum Members are mainly American, discussion on topics like abortion, tends to focus on the US.

I thought it might be useful to see abortion law, and public opinion on the acceptability of abortion, as it applies across the world.

Down below I’ve posted a map and a table.

The map comes from the Centre for Reproductive Rights and shows the current legal status of abortion across the globe. The online version (link above map) is interactive. Broadly speaking, Western countries, plus Russia and China, have abortion on request (within variable gestational limits). African, South American, Middle Eastern and South East Asian countries are a patchwork of more restrictive abortion law. There are 26 countries which totally prohibit abortion under any circumstances.

While the map covers abortion law, the table, based on a 2020 Ipsos survey of 25 countries, shows levels of public acceptance of legalised abortion. The population percentage supporting abortion varies enormously from 88% in Sweden down to 24% in Malaysia. Despite having abortion on request (with state variants) the US has one of the lowest rates of public acceptance of legalised abortion although abortion is acceptable to a significant majority (64%).

The table link (above the table) has more detailed data including comparisons to 2014 and 2019 opinion.

The World's Abortion Laws | Center for Reproductive Rights

Global Views on Abortion - August 2020 - Ipsos

OB

 

[Bradskii]

I think that it might be worth suggesting that no-one actually thinks that abortion, in itself, is a good thing. I think that if you asked every woman who ever had an abortion if it was the best option out of all the available ones, she would say that not getting pregnant in the first place would be preferable.

And yeah, not having sex will guarantee that. But if I get the chance I'll ask God why He made it one of the most difficult urges to resist.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Sex drives us together towards a relationship which God always intended should be marriage. Anyone who's been married for some time knows very well that sex fades into the background as the years go by.

I remember a friend making a joke one day that "Marriage gets to a point where it's platonic anyway...".

Or as another chap said to me at work one day (years ago) "The novelty of sex soon wears off" (in marriage).

Yet at the same time it forms an intimate, lifelong bond between humans who are one of the few species which have a more or less consistent sex drive. Most animals have breeding seasons - not us. We're good to go all year long. Since both Occam's Barber and Bradskii are fellow Australians, imagine magpies if they had their breeding season all year round - you'd have to wear a crash helmet just to step through the door.

But because most of us have short term thinking involving this world only, thinking that nothing will follow, we chase after everything else instead of God - sex, money, careers, social status, social popularity, power over others, ideology, politics, euthanasia to avoid suffering (the irony there is that I think a lot of those who use assisted suicide could well find themselves suffering far worse torments after death, which are eternal and cannot be ended), sport, entertainment, celebrities, personal publicity, and just about anything else.

Granted sex is a very strong drive, but so is eating if you're starving or drinking if you're dying of thirst in a desert. These desires serve a purpose, but they also get misused or distorted. To cover up our misuse of the sex instinct, we kill the unborn child. And that's what it is - killing - no question.

As a Christian, I think the devil has a very strong interest in promoting abortion. It destroys human life, and it gives him a legal hold on all those involved. So he'll keep pushing for it - hard.

 

[jayem]

I think that it might be worth suggesting that no-one actually thinks that abortion, in itself, is a good thing.

Absolutely. Terminating a pregnancy for less than medical reasons, or if the pregnancy resulted from some kind of sexual assault, is very undesirable. It shouldn’t happen. But using the police power of the state to criminalize elective abortion at all stages of pregnancy is simply a worse evil. It’s too authoritarian. It gives way too much power to government.

An analogy: No right-minded person approves of the crackpot “church,” that protests military funerals with signs saying “Thank God for dead soldiers.” It’s morally reprehensible. But it’s legal (at least at a distance.) Because allowing government to stifle free speech is worse. Morality and legality are different. Not everything immoral must also be illegal.

 

[Bradskii]

Absolutely. Terminating a pregnancy for less than medical reasons, or if the pregnancy resulted from some kind of sexual assault, is very undesirable. It shouldn’t happen. But using the police power of the state to criminalize elective abortion at all stages of pregnancy is simply a worse evil. It’s too authoritarian. It gives way too much power to government.

An analogy: No right-minded person approves of the crackpot “church,” that protests military funerals with signs saying “Thank God for dead soldiers.” It’s morally reprehensible. But it’s legal (at least at a distance.) Because allowing government to stifle free speech is worse. Morality and legality are different. Not everything immoral must also be illegal.

Imagine developing a virus that would infect all women. And it would make them sterile except that there would be a simple medication they could take that would temporarily return their fertility. So instead of taking a pill to prevent getting pregnant, they'd need to take one to get pregnant.

Oops. I accidently released it...

 

[Occams Barber]

I think that it might be worth suggesting that no-one actually thinks that abortion, in itself, is a good thing. I think that if you asked every woman who ever had an abortion if it was the best option out of all the available ones, she would say that not getting pregnant in the first place would be preferable.

And yeah, not having sex will guarantee that. But if I get the chance I'll ask God why He made it one of the most difficult urges to resist.

Thanks Brad.

I agree that abortion is a poor substitute for reliable birth control and an informed understanding of the consequences of unconsidered sex.

It's worth mentioning that I had no personal agenda in posting these figures. My attitude to abortion is ambivalent. I can accept early abortion but I become increasingly uncomfortable with it as the pregnancy progresses. When I set out to find current info on abortion law and public attitudes I had no idea of what I'd find and I've been a little surprised at the level of public acceptance shown in these figures.

The data missing from all this is the actual rate of abortion in individual countries. What impact does abortion law have on the actual rates of abortion? Apart from finding reliable data, issues around rates of illegal backyard abortion along with the possibility that abortion may be reduced by effective sex education, are likely to confound any raw result.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

Thanks Brad.

I agree that abortion is a poor substitute for reliable birth control and an informed understanding of the consequences of unconsidered sex.

It's worth mentioning that I had no personal agenda in posting these figures. My attitude to abortion is ambivalent. I can accept early abortion but I become increasingly uncomfortable with it as the pregnancy progresses. When I set out to find current info on abortion law and public attitudes I had no idea of what I'd find and I've been a little surprised at the level of public acceptance shown in these figures.

The data missing from all this is the actual rate of abortion in individual countries. What impact does abortion law have on the actual rates of abortion? Apart from finding reliable data, issues around rates of illegal backyard abortion along with the possibility that abortion may be reduced by effective sex education, are likely to confound any raw result.

OB

Having discussed this countless times on the now defunct Catholic Answers forum, the point I could never get over was the one you just raised. That it isn't black and white. That arbitrary dates when it becomes illegal are just that - arbitrary. And that I have zero problem with abortion a few days after conception but would not counter one a few days before birth. And that there is no bright line I could draw where I say 'This far, but no further'. As if it would be reasonable to say that it's ok on a Friday evening but not on Saturday morning.

The response to that was invariably 'If you can't say when it becomes wrong then you need to play safe and declare it to be wrong at all times'. When the problem of 'personhood' raised it's head and the temperature of the discussion went into the red zone.

 

[Jay Sea]

Having discussed this countless times on the now defunct Catholic Answers forum, the point I could never get over was the one you just raised. That it isn't black and white. That arbitrary dates when it becomes illegal are just that - arbitrary. And that I have zero problem with abortion a few days after conception but would not counter one a few days before birth. And that there is no bright line I could draw where I say 'This far, but no further'. As if it would be reasonable to say that it's ok on a Friday evening but not on Saturday morning.

The response to that was invariably 'If you can't say when it becomes wrong then you need to play safe and declare it to be wrong at all times'. When the problem of 'personhood' raised it's head and the temperature of the discussion went into the red zone.

I would add the proviso that latter abortion is valid if there is danger to the mother.
In LOve
Jay Sea

 

[jayem]

Having discussed this countless times on the now defunct Catholic Answers forum, the point I could never get over was the one you just raised. That it isn't black and white. That arbitrary dates when it becomes illegal are just that - arbitrary.

When entering the realm of legality, most all laws are arbitrary. Even as regards laws dealing with life and death. The US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute someone under 18 years of age. So if you commit a brutal murder on your 18th birthday, you could face the death penalty. But if you commit exactly the same crime at age 17 years and 364 days, you might spend the rest of your life in prison, but your life is spared. It’s totally arbitrary. But that’s how laws work. There must be some bright-line distinctions.

So for purely legal purposes, let’s apply the concept to abortion. The average human gestation is 40 weeks. Why not compromise and split it down the middle? Up to 20 weeks, abortion is a private medical matter between a pregnant woman and her physician. After 20 weeks, the state can restrict abortion to medical reasons only. Sure, it’s arbitrary. But it’s fair and reasonable.

When the problem of 'personhood' raised it's head and the temperature of the discussion went into the red zone.

Very true. The US Constitution doesn’t define the word “person.” And the Supreme Court has ruled that the unborn are not persons as that term is used in the document. One might say personhood doesn’t exist until birth. Which is also arbitrary. But no more so than claiming a zygote is a person. To me, the idea of a one-celled person is surpassingly arbitrary. And just too bizarre.

 

[Bradskii]

But no more so than claiming a zygote is a person. To me, the idea of a one-celled person is surpassingly arbitrary. And just too bizarre.

I think that if I had a dollar for every time I typed 'zygote' over at Catholic Answers then I could have retired a lot earlier.

 

[Occams Barber]

I think that if I had a dollar for every time I typed 'zygote' over at Catholic Answers then I could have retired a lot earlier.

The Christian problem is in deciding how may times zygote cleavage must occur before we have an individual human. The easy answer is to say that, from the moment of conception (the zygote), it's a human.

This response is neither rational or scientific. A single cell or two cells or 4 cells or 8 cells does not make a human being. By ignoring this the religious response looks increasingly ridiculous and indicates an aversion to facing the real issue - when does a lump of cells become a viable human?

OB

 

[Bradskii]

The Christian problem is in deciding how may times zygote cleavage must occur before we have an individual human. The easy answer is to say that, from the moment of conception (the zygote), it's a human.

This response is neither rational or scientific. A single cell or two cells or 4 cells or 8 cells does not make a human being. By ignoring this the religious response looks increasingly ridiculous and indicates an aversion to facing the real issue - when does a lump of cells become a viable human?

OB

I've been pulled up enough times on terminology in abortion debates so I wouldn't use the word 'human' as in 'a zygote is not human'. I'm very careful to say that it's not a human being aka a person. And cede the point that the egg is human, the seed is human and the resulting zygote is likewise human. As is a cell taken from a skin sample or a finger nail. And yes, it has the potential to become a person. An argument which obviously accepts that it isn't a person at the stage being discussed.

It must be noted that the Jewish faith doesn't class it as a person until the actual birth. Which is later than I would even suggest. Same God. Different rules.

 

[jayem]

I've been pulled up enough times on terminology in abortion debates so I wouldn't use the word 'human' as in 'a zygote is not human'. I'm very careful to say that it's not a human being aka a person. And cede the point that the egg is human, the seed is human and the resulting zygote is likewise human. As is a cell taken from a skin sample or a finger nail. And yes, it has the potential to become a person. An argument which obviously accepts that it isn't a person at the stage being discussed.

It must be noted that the Jewish faith doesn't class it as a person until the actual birth. Which is later than I would even suggest. Same God. Different rules.

Here’s my 2 cents:

Personhood occurs at either of 2 times, whichever comes first:

1) At birth. Whenever that occurs. No matter how premature, or how much life support it needs, a neonate is a person when s(he) is born. Nothing arbitrary about this—it’s SOP. (And for more specificity, birth has occurred when the head is outside the mother’s body. That’s the traditional definition.)

2) If still in utero, personhood occurs when the fetus has reached the stage of development where it could survive naturally if it were born. That means it’s at the point where it can breathe on it’s own, take oral nutrition, and doesn’t require high-tech life support. Nature has equipped it to survive when provided with the usual care given to any full-term newborn. There is objective data on when this occurs. Going back to the old pediatric literature, before the days of ventilators, lung surfactant, and total pareneteral feeding, a 24 week preemie had just over a 50% chance of survival. An advantage of natural viability is that it’s biologically fixed. Personhood won’t be a continually moving target as neonatal life support technology advances. So that’s the magic number. A 24 week old fetus can be considered a legal person. Yes, this is arbitrary. But it’s rational. And it’s workable.

 

[Bradskii]

Here’s my 2 cents:

Personhood occurs at either of 2 times, whichever comes first:

1) At birth. Whenever that occurs. No matter how premature, or how much life support it needs, a neonate is a person when s(he) is born. Nothing arbitrary about this—it’s SOP. (And for more specificity, birth has occurred when the head is outside the mother’s body. That’s the traditional definition.)

2) If still in utero, personhood occurs when the fetus has reached the stage of development where it could survive naturally if it were born. That means it’s at the point where it can breathe on it’s own, take oral nutrition, and doesn’t require high-tech life support. Nature has equipped it to survive when provided with the usual care given to any full-term newborn. There is objective data on when this occurs. Going back to the old pediatric literature, before the days of ventilators, lung surfactant, and total pareneteral feeding, a 24 week preemie had just over a 50% chance of survival. An advantage of natural viability is that it’s biologically fixed. Personhood won’t be a continually moving target as neonatal life support technology advances. So that’s the magic number. A 24 week old fetus can be considered a legal person. Yes, this is arbitrary. But it’s rational. And it’s workable.

If I may play the devil's advocate...then the other side of that 2c coin is the opinion that as we have the ability to help a very early term foetus survive then we should. And that date should be the one we consider. But... that date is a moveable one. And will continue to move backwards as we develop better procedures. To such an extent that I can guarantee that at some point, that will revert back to almost the point of conception. In fact, I am certain that at some point, we'll reach A Brave New World scenario where the pregnancy is taken to term outside the womb.

 

[jayem]

If I may play the devil's advocate...then the other side of that 2c coin is the opinion that as we have the ability to help a very early term foetus survive then we should. And that date should be the one we consider. But... that date is a moveable one. And will continue to move backwards as we develop better procedures. To such an extent that I can guarantee that at some point, that will revert back to almost the point of conception. In fact, I am certain that at some point, we'll reach A Brave New World scenario where the pregnancy is taken to term outside the womb.

My concept of legal personhood is based on the dependence of a fetus on it's mother's body. Any technological advance that supports gestation ex utero is addressed in my point #1. As I stated, when a fetus is outside of the mother's body, either by premature birth or some other means, it's independent of it's mother's body. It's on it's own. And I would consider it a person.

When it's still in utero, point #2 applies. It's legally a person when it could survive on its own, without the need for high-tech life support, if it were born. It's developed enough that it could be naturally independent of it's mother's body. This occurs at 24 weeks. So I would also consider it a person. Am I explaining this clearly?

BTW: The most advanced current neonatal life support technology won't save a very, very early premature birth--let's say at 15 weeks. Since the fetus is no longer in the womb, I'd agree it has personhood. It can be called a baby. But a spontaneous delivery at 15 weeks is considered a miscarriage.

 

[Jay Sea]

Most countries base their decisions on an ethical basis: some consider the living conditions of the family ie. can they sustain another child; is the child liable to be born with serious defect that would put a heavy burden on the family; is the mother in danger; was it conceived in an abusive relationship etc. Many Christians make the same judgements. It is heart breaking when you listen to people in these circumstances. I was when I was younger and in another country a marriage guidance counsellor in the Catholic Church and on occasions was face with couples before or after. Listen, understand and help them with their decision and not condemn them whatever they decided, that was not my place, mine was to be compassionate, and ask if they wanted to speak to a priest.
In Love
Jay Sea

 

[Gary987]

Abortion: Law and Public Opinion Across the World

Given that Forum Members are mainly American, discussion on topics like abortion, tends to focus on the US.

I thought it might be useful to see abortion law, and public opinion on the acceptability of abortion, as it applies across the world.

Down below I’ve posted a map and a table.

The map comes from the Centre for Reproductive Rights and shows the current legal status of abortion across the globe. The online version (link above map) is interactive. Broadly speaking, Western countries, plus Russia and China, have abortion on request (within variable gestational limits). African, South American, Middle Eastern and South East Asian countries are a patchwork of more restrictive abortion law. There are 26 countries which totally prohibit abortion under any circumstances.

While the map covers abortion law, the table, based on a 2020 Ipsos survey of 25 countries, shows levels of public acceptance of legalised abortion. The population percentage supporting abortion varies enormously from 88% in Sweden down to 24% in Malaysia. Despite having abortion on request (with state variants) the US has one of the lowest rates of public acceptance of legalised abortion although abortion is acceptable to a significant majority (64%).

The table link (above the table) has more detailed data including comparisons to 2014 and 2019 opinion.

The World's Abortion Laws | Center for Reproductive Rights
View attachment 299971


Global Views on Abortion - August 2020 - Ipsos
View attachment 299972
OB