Considering the legal framework for abortion

[Kralizec]

Thought I'd (belatedly) chip in:

Simply put, I don't think that an embryo is a human being in any relevant sense of the word, and doesn't deserve to be protected by the law. For the later stages, somebody here (forgot who) suggested that awareness be a criterium, but that's a bit iffy - I'm not versed in developmental psychology, but IIRC even newborn infants are not even self-aware in the sense that they realize they're independent creatures, distinct from their mother and other humans. I hasten to add that I don't think that self-awareness should be a criterium (otherwise, post-natal abortions would be legal), I'm just pointing out that the mere presence of some neurological activity doesn't necessarily amount to much - I have no idea when the first brain cells begin to develop, but it sounds like an arbitrary criterium. Which is not to say that I have an idea where the cut-off point should be.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on two related subjects:
Wrongful birth: this term refers to legal cases where a pregnant woman consults a doctor, to see if the unborn child is in good health. The child actually has some serious genetic defect or some other health issue, but the doctor (through negligence) fails to detect this. The woman, thinking that everything is allright, gives birth to the child months later and is unpleasantly surprised, to say the least. She sues the doctor; the grounds being that he failed in his duty and the damages being the costs of raising a disabled child and/or emotional damage.
So, thoughts? I imagine that those opposed to abortion in generally would als oppose this one, but since it is legal, should the woman's claims be honoured?

Wrongful life: related to the above. The difference is that the now-mature child, or the parents on behalf of the child, sue the doctor for damages that the child itself has suffered. Usually, this will be the costs of living after reaching maturity, as the child will in all likelyhood never be able to hold a paying job. Such claims have been honoured in a number of countries; personally I think they're absurd. Simplified, the essence of civil torts is the premise that the claimant would have been better off if the defendent had acted in a correct matter. But if that had happened, the claimant (the disabled child) wouldn't have existed at all.
I know of one Dutch case at our supreme court where such a claim was honoured, naturally provoking a storm of controversy. As for the reasoning above (the child's existence versus his non-existence), the supreme court refused to even adress the argument. A similar claim has been accepted in France by their highest court years ago, but since then the French parliament has outlawed claims like this.

[Ja'chyra]

Got to say something, can't keep it in any longer.

There's a few issues that been mentioned, so I'll go in order to stop me confusing me.....anyway

1. I would say foetus's are human when they can live by themselves, with or without medical support, no different from someone in a coma or after an accident.

2. Abortion should only be legal before this point. Religion should have no input to this at all. In fact before this point I would say it's contraception, not abortion.

3. I totally disagree that abortion is a woman only issue, with the only caveat being if her life is in danger, and I don't mean normal pregnancy danger as it always carries a risk. As most people have pointed out, it takes two, and just because the woman carries the child doesn't mean it only affects her life saying so is offensive and just plain wrong. Finding out that a woman had aborted my child would be devastating, men that feel different shouldn't be allowed to breed.

4. As far as I am concerned rapists have forgone any rights, not just the right to have a say in whether to have an abortion or not.

Oh, and MRD, once again, very funny, keep it up.