International perspectives on Abortion

[mindlight]

Are you only wanting what people outside the United States think about internal U.S. law?

Why do international opinions matter? They don't live here...

True America is not the whole world but it is a part of it. Within living memory Americans held a life begins at conception view of law. Now that a fully conservative SCOTUS is possible the principle of viability can be reviewed. It is clear that this is far from being the only legal principle from which to approach abortion law internationally and historically domestically also. Americans need not be bound by their immediate circumstance, there are other options on this as with other important issues facing the USA today

 

[Kalevalatar]

I stand by my party's basic principles:

The central value of the Christian Democrats is human dignity, based on God’s work of creation. Everyone is a unique and indispensable individual. Human dignity is based on a person’s being, not on their doing or abilities. It is priceless, regardless of gender, age, position, religion, origin of birth or other criteria.

Human life and dignity is to be respected right from conception to natural death. The starting point of Christian Democrats is always to be on the side of life, be it in the use of human embryos, abortion or euthanasia. Respecting and protecting life must be the principle also when defining the limits of scientific research.

Unlike the American pro-lifers, many of whom seem to stop caring about life exactly at the moment of birth, support death penalty, and believe in their right to shoot and kill people whenever they feel ever so slighly "threatened" by someone's looks or shadow or something, we do actually follow through those principles:

Acknowledging human dignity leads to human rights which have been listed in documents such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, on children’s rights, on removing discrimination against women. Basic needs, such as food, housing, a safe environment, health care and education as well as work to provide an adequate livelihood must be secured for everyone. The Christian Democrats want to cherish all the above, and will act particularly on protecting the rights of those who are treated contrary to their human dignity.

Human rights are always connected with obligations and responsibilities. The right to life brings with it the obligation to protect it.

Sex is fundamental to human life and one of our greatest pleasures. The late Soviet Union's (and later, Russian) contraception policies showcase perfectly why neither banning abotion nor prioritizing abortion works if it isn't coupled with solid sex-ed and convenient access to quality contraception. Rendering abortions unnecessary starts with education, education, education, contraception and humane social policies, so that no woman gets herself pregnant unless she plans to and so that no pregnant woman has to turn to abortion in the lack of social (and financial) support. It's about putting one's money where one's mouth is, or you are just a big fat hypocrite and not here to help at all but just to tout your pseudo-righteousness.

In Finland, abortion is rarer than in the neighbouring countries Sweden, Norway and Russia, despite the Nordic neighbour's offering similar and even better social support services. Because in Finland, access to abortion is restricted and couples are expected to practise greater personal responsibility in taking good care of contraception rather than never minding and relying on abortion as birth control instead.

The Nordic countries are the most advanced societies in the world and their birth rates are falling the fastest. Yet Sweden is an immigration big power -- 25% of Swedes have at least one parent born outside Sweden -- so Sweden's birth rate, compared to Finland, should not be falling at the same rate. Then again, Sweden is, unfortunately, also an abortion big power. And abortion is a medical procedure and not completely risk-free. While one abortion is generally thought to have very little effect on future chances to get pregant, more abortions increase infertility and the ability to conceive and have healthy wanted pregnancies later.

Abortion is another whammy for the infertility epidemic in developed countries along with pollution and unhealthy environment, stressful work-life unbalance, unhealthy nutrition and lifestyle choices. Abortion is very much a self-inflected wound, considering that access to birth control is as easy and as inexpensive as it ever has been. You just need to bother to use it.

Most abortions are done to young women who won't bother and to middle-aged mothers who should know better but who too rely on the same fingers-crossed method of birth control as their college-aged daughters. This is an attitudinal problem. Repeat after me: every time you have unprotected sex you can get pregant, even when you fancy yourself old enough to have lowered fertility or sex is just "for this once".

Abortions like this, that could be easily prevented with proper use of contraception, are a waste of tax-payers money and a waste of medical resources that could be used elsewhere more urgently. I will gladly invest in pro-family policies because human beings are a country's greatest resource and babies, unlike aborted featuses, will become productive members of our society one day. Abortions in our society are just one more symptom of the me-me-me insta-gratification throwaway culture of waste where the mere notion of delayed gratification and the making an effort to act responsibly are rejected as too boring and too burdensome.

 

[mindlight]

I stand by my party's basic principles:

The basic principles are truly Christian

Unlike the American pro-lifers, many of whom seem to stop caring about life exactly at the moment of birth, support death penalty, and believe in their right to shoot and kill people whenever they feel ever so slighly "threatened" by someone's looks or shadow or something, we do actually follow through those principles:



Sex is fundamental to human life and one of our greatest pleasures. The late Soviet Union's (and later, Russian) contraception policies showcase perfectly why neither banning abotion nor prioritizing abortion works if it isn't coupled with solid sex-ed and convenient access to quality contraception. Rendering abortions unnecessary starts with education, education, education, contraception and humane social policies, so that no woman gets herself pregnant unless she plans to and so that no pregnant woman has to turn to abortion in the lack of social (and financial) support. It's about putting one's money where one's mouth is, or you are just a big fat hypocrite and not here to help at all but just to tout your pseudo-righteousness.

In Finland, abortion is rarer than in the neighbouring countries Sweden, Norway and Russia, despite the Nordic neighbour's offering similar and even better social support services. Because in Finland, access to abortion is restricted and couples are expected to practise greater personal responsibility in taking good care of contraception rather than never minding and relying on abortion as birth control instead.

The Nordic countries are the most advanced societies in the world and their birth rates are falling the fastest. Yet Sweden is an immigration big power -- 25% of Swedes have at least one parent born outside Sweden -- so Sweden's birth rate, compared to Finland, should not be falling at the same rate. Then again, Sweden is, unfortunately, also an abortion big power. And abortion is a medical procedure and not completely risk-free. While one abortion is generally thought to have very little effect on future chances to get pregant, more abortions increase infertility and the ability to conceive and have healthy wanted pregnancies later.

Abortion is another whammy for the infertility epidemic in developed countries along with pollution and unhealthy environment, stressful work-life unbalance, unhealthy nutrition and lifestyle choices. Abortion is very much a self-inflected wound, considering that access to birth control is as easy and as inexpensive as it ever has been. You just need to bother to use it.

Most abortions are done to young women who won't bother and to middle-aged mothers who should know better but who too rely on the same fingers-crossed method of birth control as their college-aged daughters. This is an attitudinal problem. Repeat after me: every time you have unprotected sex you can get pregant, even when you fancy yourself old enough to have lowered fertility or sex is just "for this once".

Abortions like this, that could be easily prevented with proper use of contraception, are a waste of tax-payers money and a waste of medical resources that could be used elsewhere more urgently. I will gladly invest in pro-family policies because human beings are a country's greatest resource and babies, unlike aborted featuses, will become productive members of our society one day. Abortions in our society are just one more symptom of the me-me-me insta-gratification throwaway culture of waste where the mere notion of delayed gratification and the making an effort to act responsibly are rejected as too boring and too burdensome.

The Marin Cabinet looks quite liberal to me and the Christian Democrats are not in it. Also abortion in Finland as in the USA and UK is till 24 weeks and in practice a woman usually gets one if she wants one. It is paid for by the state. I agree that there should be a broader policy to tackle the causes and situations in which abortion take place and the Christian Democrat party has a good policy on this. But Finland as a country is not a good example of how to do abortion and no better than the USA or UK. I would say Germany is the best of the liberal democracies restricting abortion to the first trimester and in principle recognising life begins at conception.

 

[mindlight]

Are you only wanting what people outside the United States think about internal U.S. law?

Why do international opinions matter? They don't live here...

Also international opinions do not matter in themselves and neither do domestic ones. What really matters is the truth and the American legal principle like the British which came before it is a lie that should be denounced. There are better ways to handle abortion out there including the German ones. But Americans may well choose to stick their heads in the sand and ignore these as they do other things

 

[Kalevalatar]

The basic principles are truly Christian

The Marin Cabinet looks quite liberal to me and the Christian Democrats are not in it. Also abortion in Finland as in the USA and UK is till 24 weeks and in practice a woman usually gets one if she wants one. It is paid for by the state. I agree that there should be a broader policy to tackle the causes and situations in which abortion take place and the Christian Democrat party has a good policy on this. But Finland as a country is not a good example of how to do abortion and no better than the USA or UK. I would say Germany is the best of the liberal democracies restricting abortion to the first trimester and in principle recognising life begins at conception.

Frankly, mindlight, I really like you and mostly agree with you, I certainly agree with you that German abortion policies are something to look up to, but for the life of me, I don't understand your argument here. At all. Is this about your displeasure at the current Finnish "girl government" or something, because it does read so. Your arguments do not make any sense factually.

But Finland as a country is not a good example of how to do abortion and no better than the USA or UK.

The German abortion rate is 5.8 per 1,000 women aged 15-49 -- Very good.
The Finnish abortion rate is 7.6 -- not that much worse. In induced abortions for those 30 or older, Finnish rate is actually quite noticeably lower than Germany's.
UK rate is 13.
US rate is 13.
Sweden is 19.

"No better than the USA or UK"?

When the Christian Democrats were in the Finnish government, we introduced this agenda, among many other pro-societal welfare, into the government programme:

Services to promote reproductive and sexual health will be developed. The promotion of sexual health (including protection against sexually transmitted infections, sexual counselling, prevention of violence) will be integrated into family planning services. The national HIV strategy will be updated.

A reduction in the number of abortions being performed will be pursued. Counselling and support for women seeking an abortion will be guaranteed throughout the entire care chain. The need for changing the legislation regarding the time limit for abortions will be investigated.

Translation: why the disparage between the maximum weeks of 24 vs 20 for example in Down pregnancies, when the Down syndrome is a condition, not a fatal defect. The 24 weeks was legislated for fatal pregnancies, for the mother or the child. Just as in Germany. So it sends the completely wrong message to all "imperfect" individual alive and among us: you are more expendable. Not because your condition is hopeless and ultimately fatal, but because of what you are.

Needless to say: totally unaccetable in a modern Nordic society committed to equality.

And we got our government partners, the NCP, the Social Democrats, the Green League and the Left alliance (!) to agree on it -- no small feat!

So when you argue that Finnish abortion should follow Gremany's lead: In Germany as in the US, UK, Sweden and many other industrialized countries, abortion is available on demand. Meaning: ask for it and you cannot be denied. Sure, Germany has, what, two or three days mandatory "waiting period" to consider and reconsider it. Ultimately, no one can deny you the access to abortion.

Here in Finland, however, abortion is not available on demand. You can apply for it, but in order to be granted the termination of life, you need to provide proof that you meet the conditions: too young/old, health, mental or societal reasons, rape. It is not build to be a supplemental birth control, unlike in many other countries. Sure, there is no mandatory waiting period, unlike in Germany, because the "waiting period" itself is already built in the sytem of not on demand abortion, you see. And you would want Finland to ditch the not on demand abortion in favour of liberal, "anything goes , no questions asked" on demand abortion like in Germany?

Why on earth? Did you really think it through? Finland has by far the lowest abortion rate in the Nordic countries for a reason. And you would want us to adopt the German style technically illegal but practically "anything goes" abortion policies -- for what? More Nordic style high abortion rates?

So abortions ads are verboten in Germany? Guess what, I'm a 50+ lady with daughters and goddaughters and I have never seen a single Finnish ad for an abortion. They do not exist or exist in such murky shadows that an avarage Finnish woman like myself will never encounter one.

You fight a good fight and I am right there with you, I think the US, UK, Sweden, Russian abortion policies are dismal, but also do think Finnish abortion policies and the Christian Democrat policies are on the right path. Germany's large number of conservative Muslim immigrants is bout to bring the abortion rates down. Sweden's should too, except it doesn't. Either the new Swedes adopt the ways of their new homeland way too fast and thoroughly or the Swedish-born native Swedes have really, really bad abortion rates to make up the numbers.

 

[hedrick]

Abortion on demand is not true in the US. First, a number of states have effectively outlawed it. It's surrounded by enough restrictions that it's not available to many people. Second, health care is not free in the US, so it costs money.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Abortion on demand is not true in the US. First, a number of states have effectively outlawed it. It's surrounded by enough restrictions that it's not available to many people. Second, health care is not free in the US, so it costs money.

I so do sympathize with the lack of US policies for mandatory maternal and parental leave, sick leave, health care, maternal and child care, prenatal and postpartum cares, neuvolas, child and pre-school care. I do not believe a country can lower its abortion rates let alone make abortions redundant without equal distribution of education, health care, housing and pro-family policies.

The first point is education: so that no one will have sex without the awareness of the consequences and how to prevent it: pregnancy and babies. Do not have unprotected sex if you do not want to have babies.

The second point is contraception: God gave us sex to enjoy. It is a very human joy to enjoy. Unwanted pregnancies are easily prevented by affordable & easy access to contraceptives.

Should unwanted pregnancies occur, nevertheless, a decent society will ensure that a) no one will be forced to terminate the pregnancy for socio-economic reasons or for b) personal mental/health reasons.

 

[mindlight]

Frankly, mindlight, I really like you and mostly agree with you, I certainly agree with you that German abortion policies are something to look up to, but for the life of me, I don't understand your argument here. At all. Is this about your displeasure at the current Finnish "girl government" or something, because it does read so. Your arguments do not make any sense factually.

Aww I like you too! But moving on before my brain turns to mush. I am sceptical that any socalled progressive government actually delivers real progress on things that matter these days but an all female leadership is not necessarily a problem in itself.

The German abortion rate is 5.8 per 1,000 women aged 15-49 -- Very good.
The Finnish abortion rate is 7.6 -- not that much worse. In induced abortions for those 30 or older, Finnish rate is actually quite noticeably lower than Germany's.
UK rate is 13.
US rate is 13.
Sweden is 19.

"No better than the USA or UK"?

You are right the Finnish approach does seem to be quite effective. I was wrong on this. I was surprised that Sweden was so bad though, even worse than the UK and USA which have been the bench mark of evil in my view on this issue.

When the Christian Democrats were in the Finnish government, we introduced this agenda, among many other pro-societal welfare, into the government programme:

Translation: why the disparage between the maximum weeks of 24 vs 20 for example in Down pregnancies, when the Down syndrome is a condition, not a fatal defect. The 24 weeks was legislated for fatal pregnancies, for the mother or the child. Just as in Germany. So it sends the completely wrong message to all "imperfect" individual alive and among us: you are more expendable. Not because your condition is hopeless and ultimately fatal, but because of what you are.

Needless to say: totally unaccetable in a modern Nordic society committed to equality.

And we got our government partners, the NCP, the Social Democrats, the Green League and the Left alliance (!) to agree on it -- no small feat!

So when you argue that Finnish abortion should follow Gremany's lead: In Germany as in the US, UK, Sweden and many other industrialized countries, abortion is available on demand. Meaning: ask for it and you cannot be denied. Sure, Germany has, what, two or three days mandatory "waiting period" to consider and reconsider it. Ultimately, no one can deny you the access to abortion.

True also the Germans might in part have a lower abortion rate at the end of the day cause sex education here is far more thorough than in other countries so everyone knows how to use contraception. The stats are great but at the end of the day despite the technical correctness of the law , the permission is there for anyone who asks for it and paid for by the tax payer.

Here in Finland, however, abortion is not available on demand. You can apply for it, but in order to be granted the termination of life, you need to provide proof that you meet the conditions: too young/old, health, mental or societal reasons, rape. It is not build to be a supplemental birth control, unlike in many other countries. Sure, there is no mandatory waiting period, unlike in Germany, because the "waiting period" itself is already built in the sytem of not on demand abortion, you see. And you would want Finland to ditch the not on demand abortion in favour of liberal, "anything goes , no questions asked" on demand abortion like in Germany?

The German legal principle is correct from a objective Christian point of view - life does begin at conception. It also implies that the state will protect life from conception to grave although in practice it does not but allows the mother to break the law for her personal convenience having used a waiting period and some counselling to try and dissuade her of this. Interesting that equality legislation might actually work to protect life in Finland while in the UK and USA it is used to destroy life.

Why on earth? Did you really think it through? Finland has by far the lowest abortion rate in the Nordic countries for a reason. And you would want us to adopt the German style technically illegal but practically "anything goes" abortion policies -- for what? More Nordic style high abortion rates?

So abortions ads are verboten in Germany? Guess what, I'm a 50+ lady with daughters and goddaughters and I have never seen a single Finnish ad for an abortion. They do not exist or exist in such murky shadows that an avarage Finnish woman like myself will never encounter one.

You fight a good fight and I am right there with you, I think the US, UK, Sweden, Russian abortion policies are dismal, but also do think Finnish abortion policies and the Christian Democrat policies are on the right path. Germany's large number of conservative Muslim immigrants is bout to bring the abortion rates down. Sweden's should too, except it doesn't. Either the new Swedes adopt the ways of their new homeland way too fast and thoroughly or the Swedish-born native Swedes have really, really bad abortion rates to make up the numbers.

I can see why a Finn might hold some prejudices against Swedes and Russians when these guys do not bat an eyelid at murdering their kids. Keeping the body count as low as possible is the goal here and ultimately not having a deceitful legal code as is the case in the USA and UK in the legal definitions of personhood and life. The ideal would be a system where no abortions took place and the law declared life began at conception and where mothers who did become pregnant were provided for by the state and/or the man who got them pregnant. But in the absence of an ideal maybe a combination of the legal correctness of the German system and the restrictions of the Finnish system on who was allowed to have an abortion and why would be a good alternative.

 

[mindlight]

Abortion on demand is not true in the US. First, a number of states have effectively outlawed it. It's surrounded by enough restrictions that it's not available to many people. Second, health care is not free in the US, so it costs money.

I am guessing that tax payer funded abortions are a major reason why so many American Christians object to a public health system that is both comprehensive and affordable. So maybe a change in Roe v Wade would be necessary before American Christians could accept the principle and cost effectiveness of a public health service.

 

[NxNW]

Observable brain activity begins around week 5.

This is false.

 

[mindlight]

This is false.

How would you define brain activity? By the end of the first trimester the brain makes up half the body weight of a baby. The neural activity that governs movement can be observed about week 6 but even before that neurons are in place. The neural tube closes at 7 weeks

From the time the neural tube closes, around week 7, the brain will grow at a rate of 250,000 neurons per minute for the next 21 weeks. Ultrasounds can reveal the embryo moving as early as 6 weeks after conception (or 8 pregnancy weeks), detecting the electrical impulses that govern movement and indicating that the brain is beginning to function.

Fetal Brain Development Stages: When Does a Fetus Develop a Brain?

 

[NxNW]

How would you define brain activity? By the end of the first trimester the brain makes up half the body weight of a baby. The neural activity that governs movement can be observed about week 6 but even before that neurons are in place. The neural tube closes at 7 weeks

From the time the neural tube closes, around week 7, the brain will grow at a rate of 250,000 neurons per minute for the next 21 weeks. Ultrasounds can reveal the embryo moving as early as 6 weeks after conception (or 8 pregnancy weeks), detecting the electrical impulses that govern movement and indicating that the brain is beginning to function.

Information regarding embryonic brainwaves is often misquoted, with a lot of misinformation from the 60s being copied and pasted to the point that fiction is accepted as fact. Muscular movement resulting from electrical nerve impulses may exist, but brainwaves have never been detected before the fifth month of pregnancy. It's important not to confuse electrical muscle impulses--which can exist in very low forms of life-- with the ability to think.

 

[mindlight]

Information regarding embryonic brainwaves is often misquoted, with a lot of misinformation from the 60s being copied and pasted to the point that fiction is accepted as fact. Muscular movement resulting from electrical nerve impulses may exist, but brainwaves have never been detected before the fifth month of pregnancy. It's important not to confuse electrical muscle impulses--which can exist in very low forms of life-- with the ability to think.

The higher brain functions in the human brain that most fully distinguish us from animals are not fully developed until about 30 years of age. But the basic structures which will one day enable those are in place at 7 weeks with a rapid growth of neurons filling these out thereafter. Even before this point the brains control of motor functions has begun. The comparison with animals is disingenuous cause there is no animal that compared with the final capacities of the human brain. It seems to be that you could argue brain is implicit at conception,obvious by week 6-7, viable by about week 20-21 and not fully developed on a hardware level till 30 on an intellectual ability level maybe a decade or two after that. You have just arbitarily put a pin in this range at about the place which points to viability being a key principle. But this same viability is implicit at conception so it is an arbitary choice on your part.

 

[NxNW]

The comparison with animals is disingenuous cause there is no animal that compared with the final capacities of the human brain.

Actual capabilities are what matters, not potential.

It seems to be that you could argue brain is implicit at conception

No, you couldn't argue that, because after conception it could (1% of the time) split into identical twins. Does that mean two brains are implicit? Or do we take the average and assume 1.01 brains are implicit? Humans are distinct and countable, by definition. If you can't quantify the number of humans at conception, then it can't be a human being.

You have just arbitarily put a pin in this range at about the place which points to viability being a key principle. But this same viability is implicit at conception so it is an arbitary choice on your part.

Viability is certainly not implicit at conception. 70% of conceptions result in miscarriage. Live birth is the exception, not the norm.

 

[mindlight]

Actual capabilities are what matters, not potential.

That is an assertion not a fact

No, you couldn't argue that, because after conception it could (1% of the time) split into identical twins. Does that mean two brains are implicit? Or do we take the average and assume 1.01 brains are implicit? Humans are distinct and countable, by definition. If you can't quantify the number of humans at conception, then it can't be a human being.

You can if you are God, "before I formed you in the womb I knew you". All the genetic materials that will form into individual brains are there from the moment of conception. You just cannot see it until about two weeks after fertilisation when the twinning occurs.

Viability is certainly not implicit at conception. 70% of conceptions result in miscarriage. Live birth is the exception, not the norm.

Miscarriage is a normal natural process that sifts out the babies that are not developing normally. But God is in charge of that process not the mother. The choice to abort is most often of a child that could succeed. Viability is not a valid principle because once a pregnancy is established it is viable and will result in a viable birth and also because it not our choice to play God with a human life.

 

[NxNW]

You can if you are God, "before I formed you in the womb I knew you". All the genetic materials that will form into individual brains are there from the moment of conception.

Conception does not occur in the womb.

You just cannot see it until about two weeks after fertilisation when the twinning occurs.

Are you saying there can be biological structures for two humans within a single fertilized egg?!?

Miscarriage is a normal natural process that sifts out the babies that are not developing normally. But God is in charge of that process not the mother.

Sounds like you are trying to legislate a religion that not everyone believes in.

Viability is not a valid principle because once a pregnancy is established it is viable and will result in a viable birth and also because it not our choice to play God with a human life.

Not every 'established' pregnancy is viable, as we've seen. Christians seem to have no problem making deadly decisions for others when it comes to capital offenses and immigration and no-knock warrants.

 

[stevil]

It's a weird poll.

1. Viability: a child is a person when it could survive outside the womb. US-UK
2. Life begins at conception and is protected but no punishment early on or in special cases - DE
3. Life begins at birth - New Zealand
4. Life begins at conception and abortion is always murder
5. Genetic Selection: only defective children or those from bad backgrounds should die
6. One child per family - China
7. Preference to abort girls - India
8. Other

It uses ambiguous terms "person", "Life begins at...", "...should die"
So it's very hard to select an option.

It is also non factual
In NZ for example. Abortion used to be illegal but as of this year it is now legal upto 20 weeks
Abortion in New Zealand is legal within the framework of the Abortion Legislation Act 2020, which permits the termination of pregnancy for up to 20 weeks of pregnancy and removed abortion from the Crimes Act 1961. After 20 weeks, abortion is permitted only if a health practitioner deems it "clinically appropriate" and consults at least one other health practitioner. Abortion is only illegal if a person who is not a licensed health practitioner procures or performs an abortion.
So, clearly to poll option ascribed to NZ is false.

China no longer has the one child policy - Option in poll is false
the government announced in late 2015 a reversion to a two-child limit.
the term "one-child policy" has been called a "misnomer", because for nearly 30 of the 36 years that it existed (1979–2015), about half of all parents in China were allowed to have a second child

India does not have a politically established policy of preference to abort girls - Option in poll is false.


This poll seems like anti-abortion propaganda.

 

[stevil]

It seems there is a big gap between church and world here but no positive change in the law will happen without that negotiation between the two.

If we are to keep religion out of politics and we are to recognise that governed society is a diverse bunch of people with various beliefs and non beliefs, then we should not look to implement anything into law because "god said so" or because "in this religious text it says we shouldn't do such and such"

It is correct to say life begins at conception, but so what? That doesn't mean we should force women to carry to term.

 

[mindlight]

If we are to keep religion out of politics and we are to recognise that governed society is a diverse bunch of people with various beliefs and non beliefs, then we should not look to implement anything into law because "god said so" or because "in this religious text it says we shouldn't do such and such"

It is correct to say life begins at conception, but so what? That doesn't mean we should force women to carry to term.

But the law could be changed to reflect that reality rather than assuming viability (ie ability to survive) should remain the criteria for determining whether a child lives or dies. The German system recognises this reality defining life as beginning at conception and yet permits abortion after counselling in the first trimester. It has as a result one of the lowest abortion rates in the developed world. The legal definitions matter as they make it clear what that child in the womb is.

 

[NxNW]

But the law could be changed to reflect that reality rather than assuming viability (ie ability to survive) should remain the criteria for determining whether a child lives or dies. The German system recognises this reality defining life as beginning at conception and yet permits abortion after counselling in the first trimester. It has as a result one of the lowest abortion rates in the developed world. The legal definitions matter as they make it clear what that child in the womb is.

Does life begin at conception, or does it begin in the womb?