8th Amendment

ProfessorPlum

Black Menorca wrote: »

Its all about intention.

It's not really, not in the eyes of the law. A doctor looking after a patient who is at risk because of her pregnancy will abort that pregnancy in a very intentional way. The intention is definitely to end the pregnancy. It's a dishonest fudge to say otherwise - echoing the 'law of double effect' that leaves women with ectopic pregnancies infertile when Catholic hospitals put canon law before best practice.

conorh91

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You are of the opinion (without any qualification to form such an opinion) that a woman or child who has been raped and finds themselves pregnant could be suicidal could not be mentally competent.

Why can people on this thread not read accurately?

What is wrong with educational standards?

How many times does the English language have to be simplified and again simplified?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95920784&postcount=1184
and
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95933278&postcount=1330

Christ.

pmasterson95

Black Menorca wrote: »

So, you'd deny women their right to bodily integrity in some circumstances?

Wait you said last night you'd be happy to fund concentration/puppy farm-esque baby camps. I dont think you can talk about denying women anything if you advocate that.

Soyokakano

I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose. And maybe it should be a woman only vote.

Delirium

conorh91 wrote: »

Yes. They have avoided saying so by drawing an impossible, arbitrary line in the sand between being an infant and a clump of cells.

you don't see a difference between a new born child and a foetus at 1 week gestation?

At what point in gestation does infancy begin?

Don't understand the question. Infancy/infant is usually used to describe a new born child.

krankykitty

volchitsa wrote: »

Depends on the reason. Late abortions, near viability, should be for serious medical etc reason only I think.

What difference does that make - you seem to be suggesting early abortions are less bad than late ones - in which case we agree. Are you suddenly becoming pro-choice too?

Late abortions near viability are for medical reasons.

krankykitty

Hypothetical talk about very late abortions for no reason is ridiculous. Do people have that low an opinion of women that they'd put themselves through pregnancy (which isn't a walk in the park) to get near the end just to say I can't be arsed with this, I know, I think I'll have an abortion, in the same way someone might decide to get a haircut or buy a new pair of shoes.

A TINY proportion of abortions happen after 20 weeks and those are for serious, medical reasons. It's trivialising those families experiences to debate about late term abortion in this way.

Penny Tration

I'll just leave this here.

conorh91

conorh91 wrote: »

Yes. They have avoided saying so by drawing an impossible, arbitrary line in the sand between being an infant and a clump of cells.

At what point in gestation does infancy begin?

Conflation of the terms Abortion and Infanticide is unhelpful. Please try to avoid confusing the two issues.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/infanticide/

Infanticide refers to the act of killing of a newborn child

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/abortion/

Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by various methods, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life.

Atlantis50

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

I'll just leave this here.

The image of a sperm cell attempting to penetrate an egg cell (:rolleyes:) should be replaced with the following image and the wording changed to reflect reality:

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

The image of a sperm cell attempting to penetrate an egg cell (:rolleyes:) should be replaced with the following image and the wording changed to reflect reality:

Right, because there is absolutely no middle ground there.

Atlantis50

krankykitty wrote: »

Hypothetical talk about very late abortions for no reason is ridiculous. Do people have that low an opinion of women that they'd put themselves through pregnancy (which isn't a walk in the park) to get near the end just to say I can't be arsed with this, I know, I think I'll have an abortion, in the same way someone might decide to get a haircut or buy a new pair of shoes.

A TINY proportion of abortions happen after 20 weeks and those are for serious, medical reasons. It's trivialising those families experiences to debate about late term abortion in this way.

A significant number of late-term abortions in the UK are carried out on the grounds that the foetus was at risk of physical or mental disability (Ground E of the 1967 abortion act), ranging from conditions such as Down's Syndrome and congenital malformations to cleft palate and clubfoot.

Overall, there were 2,753 abortions carried out at 20 weeks and over in England and Wales in 2013 according to government statistics, including 1,201 at 22 weeks or more:



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319460/Abortion_Statistics__England_and_Wales_2013.pdf

The statistics also show that 2,732 abortions were carried out under "Ground E" (mental or physical disability of the foetus).

Do you agree with late term abortions on these grounds?

Atlantis50

Kev W wrote: »

Right, because there is absolutely no middle ground there.

That's an image of a 20 week old foetus.

Where's the middle ground in your view?

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

That's an image of a 20 week old foetus.

Where's the middle ground in your view?

The middle ground would encompass every stage of development between the two images.

krankykitty

Atlantis50 wrote: »

A significant number of late-term abortions in the UK are carried out on the grounds that the foetus was at risk of physical or mental disability (Ground E of the 1967 abortion act), ranging from conditions such as Down's Syndrome and congenital malformations to cleft palate and clubfoot.

Overall, there were 2,753 abortions carried out at 20 weeks and over in England and Wales in 2013 according to government statistics, including 1,201 at 22 weeks or more:



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319460/Abortion_Statistics__England_and_Wales_2013.pdf

The statistics also show that 2,732 abortions were carried out under "Ground E" (mental or physical disability of the foetus).

Do you agree with late term abortions on these grounds?

I think abortion should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. It's not for me to judge a decision another woman makes.

Atlantis50

Kev W wrote: »

The middle ground would encompass every stage of development between the two images.

Why are you bizarrely stopping at 20 weeks when the average pregnancy lasts 40 weeks?

Atlantis50

krankykitty wrote: »

I think abortion should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. It's not for me to judge a decision another woman makes.

That's a yes then.

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Why are you bizarrely stopping at 20 weeks when the average pregnancy lasts 40 weeks?

What? YOU picked an drawing of a fetus at 20 weeks!

Atlantis50

Kev W wrote: »

What? YOU picked an drawing of a fetus at 20 weeks!

I thought it was obvious but let's remove all doubt:

I posted a picture of a 20 week old fetus and you asked about a "middle ground".

Given that a pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, 20 weeks would represent a good "middle ground".

pmasterson95

krankykitty wrote: »

I think abortion should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. It's not for me to judge a decision another woman makes.

Of course not thats a job for those who want the 8th and enjoy forcing women to do what they want and if the woman doesnt want it lock her up and force her anyway.

krankykitty

Atlantis50 wrote: »

That's a yes then.

As I say, it's not for me to judge whether it's right or wrong. I trust women to make the right decision for their families. My view is irrelevant, because another woman doing it doesn't mean I have to. That's what choice is all about.

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I thought it was obvious but let's remove all doubt:

I posted a picture of a 20 week old fetus and you asked about a "middle ground".

Given that a pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, 20 weeks would represent a good "middle ground".

You posted a drawing of a 20 week old foetus in response to an image of an egg being implanted.

I didn't "ask" anything, I implied that there is middle ground between the two, in other words those are not the only two states of foetal development. A fertilised egg does not develop to the 20 week stage in an instant.

I did not at any point claim or imply that 20 weeks may not be considered the approximate midpoint of a pregnancy and I'm honestly baffled as to what victory you're trying to claim by implying that I did.

krankykitty

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I thought it was obvious but let's remove all doubt:

I posted a picture of a 20 week old fetus and you asked about a "middle ground".

Given that a pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, 20 weeks would represent a good "middle ground".

It's not "middle ground" when talking of abortion because most happen before the embryo is even a foetus.

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Why are you bizarrely stopping at 20 weeks when the average pregnancy lasts 40 weeks?

This thread is getting all sorts of crazy again. It was you that referred to 20 weeks, nobody else did.

conorh91

Deleted User wrote: »

Conflation of the terms Abortion and Infanticide

I am not conflating those terms. You misread the post you're quoting. I asked at what stage in pregnancy does infancy begin. The reason is, I was actually thinking to myself of the media coverage about a woman who media reports say "lost her unborn baby" in a vicious attack.

And it reminded me of a question I have often asked, and never got a satisfactory answer: why is a foetus a baby when it is wanted, and yet we question its very membership of the human race when it is unwanted?

So, if I sympathize with a mother for having lost her unborn baby, are you going to tell me, or her, that this is incorrect language?

traprunner

conorh91 wrote: »

I am not conflating those terms, I was actually thinking to myself of the media coverage about a woman who media reports say "lost her unborn baby" in a vicious attack.

And it reminded me of a question I have often asked, and never got a satisfactory answer: why is a foetus a baby when it is wanted, and yet we question its very membership of the human race when it is unwanted?

So, if I sympathize with a mother for having lost her unborn baby, are you going to tell me, or her, that this is incorrect language?

Technically it is incorrect but it is used because it's emotive and expected due to this thing most humans have called empathy. Although 'mother' is completely incorrect if she does not have children already. You don't rock up and say "Hey mother, sorry to hear you lost your baby".

Delirium

conorh91 wrote: »

I am not conflating those terms. You misread the post you're quoting. I asked at what stage in pregnancy does infancy begin. The reason is, I was actually thinking to myself of the media coverage about a woman who media reports say "lost her unborn baby" in a vicious attack.

And it reminded me of a question I have often asked, and never got a satisfactory answer: why is a foetus a baby when it is wanted, and yet we question its very membership of the human race when it is unwanted?

So, if I sympathize with a mother for having lost her unborn baby, are you going to tell me, or her, that this is incorrect language?

"we" do?

Kev W

conorh91 wrote: »

So, if I sympathize with a mother for having lost her unborn baby, are you going to tell me, or her, that this is incorrect language?

No, because correcting someone's language in a situation like that would be monstrous. If someone said their spouse had been beaten to death with a Hoover only a sociopath would say "actually that's a brand name, they were beaten to death with a Dyson vacuum cleaner".

Why are we even discussing the use of language anyway, that's not the subject at hand here?

conorh91

conorh91 wrote: »

I am not conflating those terms. You misread the post you're quoting. I asked at what stage in pregnancy does infancy begin. The reason is, I was actually thinking to myself of the media coverage about a woman who media reports say "lost her unborn baby" in a vicious attack.

And it reminded me of a question I have often asked, and never got a satisfactory answer: why is a foetus a baby when it is wanted, and yet we question its very membership of the human race when it is unwanted?

So, if I sympathize with a mother for having lost her unborn baby, are you going to tell me, or her, that this is incorrect language?

A fetus is not a baby.

Abortion is not Infanticide.

The above are straightforward facts.

If you want to start semantic discussions about the term 'baby' and it's colloquial usage (consider that some people call their cars their 'baby') then I suggest starting a thread in the languages forums on the nuances of words and their usage within society.

conorh91

Deleted User wrote: »

I suggest starting a thread in the languages forums on the nuances of words and their usage within society.

I suggest you leave moderating to the moderators. It's illogical that an unborn is a baby when wanted, and possibly not even a human being when not.

Now it is arguable that a foetus only becomes a baby during late pregnancy, maybe at viability. But that was my original point: it's all quite arbitrary.

Kev W wrote: »

No, because correcting someone's language in a situation like that would be monstrous.

Yes it would. Well, to me anyway. It's just a clump of cells to you, right? Is it human? Many people doubt it.

I actually find that position a little dismissive of parents, as though the loss they experience is emotional, and not real. A bit like a child losing a soft toy.