Morality of advances in science relating to pregnancy.

political analyst

Regarding tests that determine whether a foetus has a disability, thus influencing some women into having abortions because they don't want to bring up children that have disabilities (e.g. Down syndrome), how could the scientists who created those tests believe that what they've done is justified? Have they no sense of morality?

On another pregnancy-related matter, some transmen who retained their wombs (having been born as biological females, obviously) have been pregnant and given birth. Did those medical specialists who made pregnancy possible in those circumstances not think of the effect this would have on the mental health of children who are conceived in that way?

Surely, doctors and scientists cannot just throw morality away.

One eyed Jack

political analyst wrote: »

Surely, doctors and scientists cannot just throw morality away.

I think you mean ethics, rather than morality, but ethics are a huge area of science and medicine, precisely because circumstances aren’t so black and white as they are often portrayed by simplistic narratives meant to favour one outcome over another.

eviltwin

political analyst wrote: »

Regarding tests that determine whether a foetus has a disability, thus influencing some women into having abortions because they don't want to bring up children that have disabilities (e.g. Down syndrome), how could the scientists who created those tests believe that what they've done is justified? Have they no sense of morality?

On another pregnancy-related matter, some transmen who retained their wombs (having been born as biological females, obviously) have been pregnant and given birth. Did those medical specialists who made pregnancy possible in those circumstances not think of the effect this would have on the mental health of children who are conceived in that way?

Surely, doctors and scientists cannot just throw morality away.

I suppose it depends on how you look at it.

I would see these tests as a good thing. People can be prepared for what might be in their future rather than be shocked by it.

If some choose not to go ahead that’s their choice. Not sure you can lay responsibility on those who developed the science.

AllForIt

Putting the abortion thing aside, it is much more important to be able to access the health of a foetus/baby before it's born than not, as in some cases the baby may actually be dead or a threat to the mothers life in some way, so it's not like you can just test for those things and not test for less serious things. If you went for a health checkup yourself OP you get a 'full' checkup wouldn't you. If they saw something minor they'd tell you wouldn't they, rather than withholding it.

As for your second point I have no idea what the problem is there as I don't understand why anyone would have mental health issues as a result of being born in that context.

Anyway it's not for practitioners themselves to decide these things is it? Aren't these issues decided by some governing body run by the state. So if you want to dispute the way things are done you'd have to get political and haven't all these abortion related things been trashed out and decided already.

James Brown

Handy to know if the child will have some illness that might cause them a few short months of misery before dying or if the parent won't be able to cope, (financially/mentally/physically) due to the needs of the child. Sadly we don't have medical/pharmaceutical CEO/boards with the same idea of morals as those who oppose abortion.

biko

political analyst wrote: »

how could the scientists who created those tests believe that what they've done is justified? Have they no sense of morality?

When someone invents a tool they don't always foresee what it can be used for.
An axe can be used to chop down trees, or people. When it's used as a weapon, is it the inventor's fault? Of course not.

The people that invented the tests bears zero responsibility for a woman's decision to abort her fetus. The decision is all hers.

seamus

The existence of information in itself cannot be considered immoral. Facts are facts and are not subject to value judgements.

The process for gathering that data, can be subject to value judgements, but if the process itself results in no harm or loss of agency, then it can't be considered immoral.

Thus, the early foetal screening tests themselves are not immoral. They do no harm and they are not performed on unwilling participants.

The morality of what is done with that information, is a seperate matter.

On the other hand, explicitly refusing to give someone information about themselves because you wish to prevent them from using that information, is immoral. It is taking away their agency and their right to make decisions for themselves.

Manach

seamus wrote: »

The existence of information in itself cannot be considered immoral. Facts are facts and are not subject to value judgements.

The process for gathering that data, can be subject to value judgements, but if the process itself results in no harm or loss of agency, then it can't be considered immoral.

Thus, the early foetal screening tests themselves are not immoral. They do no harm and they are not performed on unwilling participants.

The morality of what is done with that information, is a seperate matter.

On the other hand, explicitly refusing to give someone information about themselves because you wish to prevent them from using that information, is immoral. It is taking away their agency and their right to make decisions for themselves.

I note with interest the dehumanising language that is employed when speaking of the unborn which has preceded apace once the right to life for them was stripped away, which if any one is interested in pursuing is explored in more depht in the book "Law and Ethics in Medicine" by Keown. It is also ironic the marking of boundaries about what is or not moral given the shifting sands of responsibly and agency, given the lack thereof in the unborn.

OMM 0000

Aborting babies with a genetic problem:

It's still up to the woman to decide if she wants to keep the baby.

The entire thing is sad. I guess in an ideal world the babies would be born and we'd have a system in place to ensure they got the best care possible. But right now the parents are left with so much responsibility and cost I can kind of understand why they would consider having the abortion. I feel bad for all involved, and especially bad for the little baby.

Transmen having kids:

I don't know if the kid will have issues because of this. I guess they probably will. But not because their mom is dressed as a man but because their mom probably has a lot of issues.

Mrs OBumble

seamus wrote: »

On the other hand, explicitly refusing to give someone information about themselves because you wish to prevent them from using that information, is immoral. It is taking away their agency and their right to make decisions for themselves.

So even if you believe a baby will be aborted if it is female and not aborted if it is male (irrespective of abnormalities), then it's immoral to not provide information about the baby's sex?

jackboy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So even if you believe a baby will be aborted if it is female and not aborted if it is male (irrespective of abnormalities), then it's immoral to not provide information about the baby's sex?

Where abortion is concerned all such issues are grey areas with widely varying, frequently aggressive opinions. Advances in science will only complicate these matters even further. Eventually there may be tests for athletic potential and intelligence for instance.

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

As for your second point I have no idea what the problem is there as I don't understand why anyone would have mental health issues as a result of being born in that context.

I think it may relate to the idea of the child having to cope with the idea that their biological mother considers themselves to be the child’s father. It certainly raises ethical questions from a legal point of view where the biological mother is recognised in law as male, but they are not recognised in law as the child’s father. The case of Freddie McConnell is an interesting one -


Freddy McConnell: Transgender man's bid to be named father fails


One of the most ethically dubious examples of modern medicine and science in recent years (and there have been many), is what became known as the Ashley Treatment -

Pillow Angel Ethics, Part 1

Pillow Angel Ethics, Part 2

nozzferrahhtoo

political analyst wrote: »

Regarding tests that determine whether a foetus has a disability, thus influencing some women into having abortions

I would be cautious with conflating providing people with accurate information with "influencing" their decisions. Because then giving anyone accurate information in any situation could be misconstrued under that. For example is giving a politician accurate information "influencing them to go to war"?

Peoples moral and ethical choices are based on many things. Their world view and emotions and human frailties being some of them. But the one thing that I feel they SHOULD be basing it on alongside everything else? Up to date and accurate information. And if our scientific progress can facilitate that, then that is a good thing.

political analyst wrote: »

how could the scientists who created those tests believe that what they've done is justified? Have they no sense of morality?

Not sharing YOUR sense of morality does not mean they have NO sense of morality. To think like that, I would have to have an unwarranted and unjustifiable and over inflated sense of my own moral superiority. So I personally move away from any sense that people operating under a different moral world view than me are therefore amoral. Perhaps you might consider the same.

Most, if not all, scientists I have met are driven by discovery and truth. What OTHER people do with their discoveries is on them. They need not feel their own morality indicted by the actions of people that

Manach wrote: »

I note with interest the dehumanising language that is employed when speaking of the unborn

I note with interest the pre-humanising language that is employed when speaking of the unborn too.

People who have issues related to fetuses tend to gravitate towards language that humanises the fetus before it's due. Because lacking any moral or ethical arguments on the subject they know that language can appeal to unwarranted emotions and influence people through their hearts rather than failing to through their intellect.

The language we use does not "de" humanise anything. Rather it puts up a barrier to attempts to emotively humanse something on a whim and before it's due in order to score political influence. are not them.

seamus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So even if you believe a baby will be aborted if it is female and not aborted if it is male (irrespective of abnormalities), then it's immoral to not provide information about the baby's sex?

My belief is irrelevant, it's not my place to make decisions on someone else's behalf.

The inverse of this argument: If you knew that the child will be hated or devalued because of their sex, will be beaten, tortured, raped, sold into bondage or killed in infancy, would you still withhold that information from their parents and force that child to be born?

OMM 0000

seamus wrote: »

My belief is irrelevant, it's not my place to make decisions on someone else's behalf.

Ah stop with that, it sounds like pro-abortion propaganda.

Of course you can have beliefs.

If people want to take heroin do you have no opinion (belief) on that because it's not your place?

You can apply this logic to everything, so everything is OK and you're not allowed have an opinion on it.

Of course aborting a child because it's female is horribly wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo

The user did not once say they could not have a belief or an opinion though, now did they?

You are responding to something no one actually said. What the user said was that in the context of someone else's decision on when or why to have an abortion, their own opinion is not relevant.

Saying "my opinion/belief is not relevant" is massively different to saying "I am not permitted an opinion/belief".

Your OPINION is that it is morally wrong to use the gender of a fetus as a basis for aborting it. But since no one appears to be able to come up with a single moral or ethical argument against abortion.... then your opinion on another person's reasons for choosing it.... is irrelevant.

Eating sugar and fattening food is not morally wrong either. If I choose to eat so much of it that I intentionally I become disabled and unable to work and have to claim disability allowance.... then you might be of the opinion that it was morally wrong for me to do so. Your opinion would be worth squat though.

This is why the heroin analogy fails. You are conflating the morality of X, and the morality of the reasons used to opt for X. They are not the same thing. We should not permit pretense that they are.

seamus

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Of course you can have beliefs.

I didn't say you couldn't. I said my belief was irrelevant.

Of course aborting a child because it's female is horribly wrong.

I didn't say it was or wasn't. One is perfectly entitled to judge the decisions that another person makes.

One is not entitled to make those decisions for another person jus because they don't trust them to make the one they believe to be right.*

*It goes without saying that I mean an adult who is capable of making decisions and in full control of their faculties.

OMM 0000

I'm sorry Seamus, I don't buy that at all, it sounds like you've fallen for the propaganda that your belief is irrelevant because you're a man.

Abortion has reached its currently state of insanity (e.g. abortions at 9 months) because most people won't speak up and tell these sick freaks that they've gone way too far.

seamus

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I'm sorry Seamus, I don't buy that at all, it sounds like you've fallen for the propaganda that your belief is irrelevant because you're a man.

Lol.
The same would apply if I was a woman. No woman is entitled to make decisions for another either. Whether they believe it's wrong or right is irrelevant.

Abortion has reached its currently state of insanity (e.g. abortions at 9 months) because most people won't speak up and tell these sick freaks that they've gone way too far.

Every human being who has ever lived has been the result of an aborted pregnancy. The vast majority of them at 9 months.

nozzferrahhtoo

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I'm sorry Seamus, I don't buy that at all, it sounds like you've fallen for the propaganda that your belief is irrelevant because you're a man.

Ah the old "Since I can not rebut what you think, I will tell you what I want to believe you think instead" move

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Abortion has reached its currently state of insanity (e.g. abortions at 9 months)

Could you be clear (maybe with citations) as to what you are referring to here? What exactly is an "abortion at 9 months", who has been performing them, and where?

OMM 0000

seamus wrote: »

Lol.
The same would apply if I was a woman. No woman is entitled to make decisions for another either. Whether they believe it's wrong or right is irrelevant.

Better get rid of all laws so.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

What exactly is an "abortion at 9 months", who has been performing them, and where?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/new-york-and-virginia-push-expand-abortion-rights/581959/

"In New York and Virginia, Democratic state governments are working to loosen restrictions on abortion late in pregnancy, far past the stages at which fetuses can survive after birth."

In Virginia the abortion can happen all the way to birth if the baby could "impair the mental or physical health of the woman".

So yeah, a woman who suddenly gets really depressed at the thought of having a baby can have an abortion at 9 months.

This is what happens when you stay silent and let extremists take over.

They are using the exact same tactic with transgenderism - it's not your place to comment on it, and now look, if you don't agree a transgender woman is 100% a real woman, you are a bigot. Even if that transgender woman was a man 20 minutes ago.

joseywhales

As always, the weight of ethics lies with the decision maker, not with the scientist whose goal was to understand the world a little better or even the product maker who created a commercial use of the science. At some point the consumer makes the decision of their own free will.

OMM 0000

joseywhales wrote: »

As always, the weight of ethics lies with the decision maker, not with the scientist whose goal was to understand the world a little better or even the product maker who created a commercial use of the science. At some point the consumer makes the decision of their own free will.

At what point should the baby have a right to live?

Surely you can admit at 9 months that's a real life and should not be killed?

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

At what point should the baby have a right to live?

Surely you can admit at 9 months that's a real life and should not be killed?

who is conducting abortions at 9 months?

Princess Calla

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

who is conducting abortions at 9 months?

Well I think it originally started on the back of Seamus' comment that everyone who has ever lived is the result of an abortion.....as in the natural abortion of pregnancy , birth!

Though seemingly the states of new York/ Virginia might allow abortions up to 9 months if mother is at risk.

nozzferrahhtoo

OMM 0000 wrote: »

"In New York and Virginia, Democratic state governments are working to loosen restrictions on abortion late in pregnancy, far past the stages at which fetuses can survive after birth."

So the first inaccuracy in your claim is that you wrote "has reached its currently state of insanity" but your link is about some people who are CURRENTLY working to affect a change you disagree with. So it has not actually happened yet at all according to your article.

Second, the article is about a year and a half old. What has happened since it's publication? Did it move forward? Did it stall? What decisions were made? You wrote "has reached its currently state of insanity". But what you just linked is not at all current? What IS the current state exactly? Last I heard was that the proposals in New York and Virginia were tabled with no intention to review them or consider them again. Has there been developments since then? Or have they actually been abandoned?

"It is unsurprising that abortions this late in pregnancy are vastly unpopular with the American public. Gallup polling from 2018 found that only 13 percent of Americans favor making third-trimester abortions “generally” legal, and only 18 percent of Democrats shared that position. Women reject late-term abortion at an even higher rate than men. A Marist survey from earlier this year found that 75 percent of Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, and majorities of Democrats and those who describe themselves as pro-choice agreed."

What you might also ignore is later clarifications following the article you cited. For example your link has the ominous sounding sentence "the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother" but this was later clarified by the same person who went on to say "the “discussion” would be regarding medical prognosis and treatment, not ending the life of the newborn". Clarified because Pence and many others RUSHED to straw man what was actually said.

No I do not see any "insanity" in your link, or extremism. The only extremism I see is YOUR response to the story. What I DO see is that many US states are currently reviewing their abortion laws. Proposals have been made. And some proposals, like the one you cite, were considered and pretty much rejected by the process/system. Where is the insanity therefore? This is how politics and law making SHOULD work. Proposals of all sorts should be made, considered, rejected or accepted. This is proper process. The extremism that such things should NOT happen is yours, and yours alone.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

They are using the exact same tactic with transgenderism - it's not your place to comment on it

Speak for yourself. I have never once in my life even had it SUGGESTED to me that I have no right to comment on it. And if you know anything about me at all from my years on this forum.... or any other forum real or electronic.... you would likely already know what my response would be to anyone who even tried. During the abortion debate I did indeed get a small handful of hopefuls who thought they might silence me by telling me I am a man so it was nothing to do with me. I made short work of them. They did not try it with me again.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

At what point should the baby have a right to live?

In my view, when there is any reason to think the fetus has become a sentient agents. This has not even remotely happened by 16 weeks when something like 96% of choice based abortion actually occurs.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Surely you can admit at 9 months that's a real life and should not be killed?

Agreed. At 7/8/9 months they should have the option to terminate the pregnancy, not the child.

OMM 0000

Princess Calla wrote: »

Though seemingly the states of new York/ Virginia might allow abortions up to 9 months if mother is at risk.

The problem though (in Virginia) is they made the concept of "if mother is at risk" purposefully vague. As I stated above, it is just "impair the mental or physical health of the woman".

impair = weaken or damage

So this is very broad.

OMM 0000

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Loads of stuff

The Virginia abortion changes were signed into law.

Instead of writing that huge block of text, twice, you could gave just googled it, or taken my word for it.

You are trying to claim I'm an extremist, and then you say you believe women should be allowed terminate their pregnancy at 7, 8, or 9 months. That is sick.

nozzferrahhtoo

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The problem though (in Virginia) is they made the concept of "if mother is at risk" purposefully vague.

But they didn't did they? They made that PROPOSAL and it was rejected. So what's your actual problem?

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The Virginia abortion changes were signed into law.

Not the ones you cited, no. Different ones were. What was LATER signed into law was quite different from the proposals made in the 18 month old link you cited.

What was actually signed into law was a removal of the requirement to have an ultrasound before the abortion was performed. There was also something signed into law related to whether to call abortion providers "hospitals" or not. I believe they also removed a restriction suggesting only physicians be allowed perform first trimester abortions.

This is how politics and law should work. Reform happens. Proposals are made. Many proposals are rejected. There is no "extremism" here except from you. It seems the only thing bothering you here is that people are allowed make PROPOSALS you personally do not like.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Instead of writing that huge block of text, twice, you could gave just googled it, or taken my word for it.

Lucky I didn't given "your word for it" was incomplete, out of date, inaccurate and misleading.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You are trying to claim I'm an extremist, and then you say you believe women should be allowed terminate their pregnancy at 7, 8, or 9 months. That is sick.

What is sick about it? Do you even know the different between terminating a pregnancy and terminating a child? I am not convinced you do. There is nothing wrong with terminating a pregnancy. We do it all the time. Guess what? The child LIVES when you do that.

OMM 0000

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What is sick about it? Do you even know the different between terminating a pregnancy and terminating a child? I am not convinced you do. There is nothing wrong with terminating a pregnancy. We do it all the time. Guess what? The child LIVES when you do that.

Just so we're clear here.

At 7 months you want women to be able to end their pregnancy.

The child is taken out.

The child will have a higher risk of certain long-term health problems, including autism, intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, lung problems, and vision and hearing loss.

Does the woman's life need to be in danger, or she can make this decision regardless?

nozzferrahhtoo

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The child will have a higher risk

Of course there are risks, though I am not sure they are the ones you list (without citation) but that is another conversation.

There is hardly a medical procedure out there that does not have risks. You can die because of a tooth extraction you know. We are aware of the risks.

What medical ethics requires is no black and white thinking. We have to balance the rights and well being of everyone involved, not just the child.

In my view once the fetus is something we suspect has attained sentience.... it has a right to life. Absolute. But the rest of its rights are not absolute and HAVE to be made with the rights, well being, and freedoms of the mother too. Imagine for example conjoined twins who have reached a decent age. Suddenly one of them absolutely 100% says they want to be separated. Despite the risks. The other 100% says they do not want to be, refuses the procedure, and does not accept taking on the risks. What should be done there? This stuff is not easy you know. No one said it should be either.

So if she wants another person out of her then, while this decision should not be taken lightly or just handed out like confetti, I think it has to be an option on the table.

It would be easy if medical ethics were black and white, right and wrong, 1 or 0. But they are not. And thankfully many of the people working in that realm are not lazy 2 dimensional thinkers like the people screeching at them from the galleries. It is not an easy job, and I do not envy them it.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Does the woman's life need to be in danger, or she can make this decision regardless?

That is indeed the discussion our society needs to have. A discussion that is not going to be helped by people shouting "extremism" and "insanity" and "disgusting" at any proposal they personally do not like.

OMM 0000

Why do you try to cast doubt on everything?

The risks of preterm delivery are known. They are not up for debate by you.

So you think a woman should have the option of ending the pregnancy at 7 months, even though it's bad for the baby.

You and me are very different, so I'm checking out of this conversation with you now.

nozzferrahhtoo

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Why do you try to cast doubt on everything?

Because it is rational to do so. To consider all claims made as doubtful until they hold up to scrutiny. And when something you said / claimed / linked to turned out to be inaccurate, misleading, out dated and in some parts outright false..... then FURTHER doubt is warranted. It is not that I casted doubt here, it is that you brought it down on yourself.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The risks of preterm delivery are known. They are not up for debate by you.

They are up for debate by everyone. Everything is. You are not the arbiter of what can or can not be debated.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

So you think a woman should have the option of ending the pregnancy at 7 months, even though it's bad for the baby.

I believe it should be an option on the table for consideration yes. And "it's bad for the baby" is also misleading. There are POTENTIALS for it being bad with increased risks. That is all you can safely claim.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I'm going to go ahead and bet you have zero children.

Two. So your guesses, much like your assertions, are wrong.

OMM 0000

I said I wasn't going to reply, but now you're making up crap about me (the last quote you made up). Get a life.

nozzferrahhtoo

Editing a post after I reply to it does not mean I made up anything. If you feel I did however, please report it.

I made up nothing.

OMM 0000

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Editing a post after I reply to it does not mean I made up anything. If you feel I did however, please report it.

I made up nothing.

:rolleyes:

What kind of person am I talking to?

Adding you to my ignore list now.

nozzferrahhtoo

A person who is not going to play the player rather than the ball, and a person who is not going to be fooled by having a post I replied to edited after I replied to it. Also a person who will stay on topic:

You claimed there was "extreme" and "insane" abortion laws in play. When called on this it turned out you were only referring to some PROPOSED laws from 18 months ago. When this was pointed out you then falsely claimed the proposals were signed into law. The truth there however is that a completely different set of proposals was signed into law. And from what I see, the ones signed into law are pretty good and in no way "extreme" or "insane". When THIS was pointed out to you you went back and edited a post I had already replied to to make it look like I had made up a quote from you.

This is not a good look. The simple fact is that no "insane" or "extreme" laws were enacted.... a set of unpalatable proposals was considered and rejected was what actually happened. And this is a GOOD thing because this is how politics should work. Proposals should be made. Proposals should be considered. Bad proposals should be rejected and good proposals should be followed.

And that, seemingly, is what happened here. So I ask again, since you did not answer before: Whats the problem?

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

What kind of person am I talking to?

Adding you to my ignore list now.

you get caught out in a lie so you decide to run and hide. we haven't see that before in an abortion debate.

political analyst

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddy_McConnell

I fear that his child will suffer psychological harm upon learning of the details of the conception.

How the hell is it any better than eugenics?

nozzferrahhtoo

I am not sure how many parents share the details of conception with their children?

But ahhhhh it takes me back to the gay marriage debates where we were told that children raised by gay parents would suffer psychological harm, bullying and more. Ignoring as they did so all the studies that show that children raised by gay parents fare as well as (and in some specific cases arguably better than) children of traditional M/F parents.

One user so put out by the fact no studies were backing up ANYTHING he was saying or claiming even going so far as to moan that all the studies of this nature were performed by liberals in liberal institutions with an agenda to justify liberal life styles.... before then rubbishing the measurements used to ascertain such outcomes while dodging any attempts to A) have him explain the problem with the measures used or propose any of his own to contrast them.

Meanwhile the world is at this time seemingly STILL not punctuated by statistically anomalous disparity in the well being of these kids. So I see no particular reason to have any above average fear that the well being of any one particular child, like above, is in jeopardy either.

That is unless it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and those that are so intent that this child will turn out harmed will put the child under such scrutiny with it's privacy and life so frequently impinged upon by these low lifes... that it will be them rather than the circumstances of it's conception that result in poor outcomes.

Not being big on law I do not know myself if among the people we would have to thank for THAT......would be the ones who worked hard to have anonymity orders removed from the case? But it would still be nice if people would have the decency to leave this child alone to develop normally like any other child now. Let's hope they do.

The comparison to Eugenics however is as spurious as it is hyperbolic. Though it seems anecdotally to me at least to be the go to buzz word in the gay marriage, and the abortion, debates. One person's decision to conceive a child is nothing even remotely like what the word Eugenics is or means. Someone needs a dictionary.

nolivesmatter

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I believe it should be an option on the table for consideration yes. And "it's bad for the baby" is also misleading. There are POTENTIALS for it being bad with increased risks. That is all you can safely claim.

What in your opinion would be the reasons to have an abortion at 7 months?

keano_afc

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Just so we're clear here.

At 7 months you want women to be able to end their pregnancy.

The child is taken out.

The child will have a higher risk of certain long-term health problems, including autism, intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, lung problems, and vision and hearing loss.

Does the woman's life need to be in danger, or she can make this decision regardless?

Judging by the replies you're getting, I wouldnt waste my time.

nozzferrahhtoo

nolivesmatter wrote: »

What in your opinion would be the reasons to have an abortion at 7 months?

Too vague a question to answer. There could be any number of reasons. Why limit it to the ones I come up with? However to repeat myself, at 7 months I would be looking to terminate the PREGNANCY, not the child. And the reasons need to be considered not by me, or by you, but by the law makers in the jurisdiction in question, the woman who is pregnant and is seeking not to be, and her medical doctor.

keano_afc wrote: »

Judging by the replies you're getting, I wouldnt waste my time.

Well in my own personal opinion, a reply with content is better than a complete non-reply devoid of any. This being a discussion forum and not twitter and all

I can not find fault with any of the replies that user has been getting. If you can, by all means enlighten us.

political analyst

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure how many parents share the details of conception with their children?

But ahhhhh it takes me back to the gay marriage debates where we were told that children raised by gay parents would suffer psychological harm, bullying and more. Ignoring as they did so all the studies that show that children raised by gay parents fare as well as (and in some specific cases arguably better than) children of traditional M/F parents.

One user so put out by the fact no studies were backing up ANYTHING he was saying or claiming even going so far as to moan that all the studies of this nature were performed by liberals in liberal institutions with an agenda to justify liberal life styles.... before then rubbishing the measurements used to ascertain such outcomes while dodging any attempts to A) have him explain the problem with the measures used or propose any of his own to contrast them.

Meanwhile the world is at this time seemingly STILL not punctuated by statistically anomalous disparity in the well being of these kids. So I see no particular reason to have any above average fear that the well being of any one particular child, like above, is in jeopardy either.

That is unless it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and those that are so intent that this child will turn out harmed will put the child under such scrutiny with it's privacy and life so frequently impinged upon by these low lifes... that it will be them rather than the circumstances of it's conception that result in poor outcomes.

Not being big on law I do not know myself if among the people we would have to thank for THAT......would be the ones who worked hard to have anonymity orders removed from the case? But it would still be nice if people would have the decency to leave this child alone to develop normally like any other child now. Let's hope they do.

The comparison to Eugenics however is as spurious as it is hyperbolic. Though it seems anecdotally to me at least to be the go to buzz word in the gay marriage, and the abortion, debates. One person's decision to conceive a child is nothing even remotely like what the word Eugenics is or means. Someone needs a dictionary.

There is a common element - interfering with human nature.

nozzferrahhtoo

political analyst wrote: »

There is a common element - interfering with human nature.

Yeah well sport and rape have a common element too. Breathing. If you are going to link two very different things on one barely relevant commonality between them.... then that way a chasm of absolute nonsense will yawn at your feet. There will be hardly any two things you can not compare on some arbitrary irrelevancy.

However no "human nature" was interfered with in the link you gave above. Perhaps there is more to the story that was not included in the link? But nothing in the link supports your assertion above here.

What did happen in your link was that someone born with the ability to bear and give birth to a child did so. Nothing about human nature was messed with there at all. That person THEN went on to seek something under law to be changed to accommodate their wishes. So human nature was not interfered with. Rather an attempt to modify human LAW was made. And human law and human nature are massively different things.

All that said however we "interfere with human nature" all the time. So merely throwing out the phrase "interfere with human nature" to justify the ominous overtones of a failed attempt to link that with Eugenics is even weaker and more hyperbolic than your first failed attempt. It is on a par with the people against homosexuality or abortion who.... lacking any actual arguments.... merely screech the words "natural" and "unnatural" as if one automatically means "good" and the other automatically means "bad".

In short, you are not making any actual point, merely misusing language in lieu of making an actual point. An ineffectual approach we saw LOTS of in the failed attempts of anti abortion activists in the recent referendum.

El_Duderino 09

political analyst wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddy_McConnell

I fear that his child will suffer psychological harm upon learning of the details of the conception.

How the hell is it any better than eugenics?

I'll bet the same was said in the past of "illegitimate" babies - those conceived out of wedlock. It probably depends on how they're told. I'd bet lots of children were told they are "illegitimated" and "bastards" conceived of the Divil himself, indelibly imbued with the mark of their parent's sin, are not a proper heir, and cannot be considered for jobs and positions in society. That could have lead to the child holding a very negative view of themselves. But it doesn't have to be framed as a problem at all. If the OP told the child of the circumstances of their conception, they could well end up with a negative view of themselves due to the OP's negative bias against trans people having children.

But I'd bet the child wouldn't give a shyte unless someone tells them they should have a problem with it. Children don't generally give a shyte about these kinds of things as the things that people have a problem about are generally rules made up by adults. Children learn most prejudices from other people and I think the OP would be a very good teacher in that regard. .

political analyst

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah well sport and rape have a common element too. Breathing. If you are going to link two very different things on one barely relevant commonality between them.... then that way a chasm of absolute nonsense will yawn at your feet. There will be hardly any two things you can not compare on some arbitrary irrelevancy.

However no "human nature" was interfered with in the link you gave above. Perhaps there is more to the story that was not included in the link? But nothing in the link supports your assertion above here.

What did happen in your link was that someone born with the ability to bear and give birth to a child did so. Nothing about human nature was messed with there at all. That person THEN went on to seek something under law to be changed to accommodate their wishes. So human nature was not interfered with. Rather an attempt to modify human LAW was made. And human law and human nature are massively different things.

All that said however we "interfere with human nature" all the time. So merely throwing out the phrase "interfere with human nature" to justify the ominous overtones of a failed attempt to link that with Eugenics is even weaker and more hyperbolic than your first failed attempt. It is on a par with the people against homosexuality or abortion who.... lacking any actual arguments.... merely screech the words "natural" and "unnatural" as if one automatically means "good" and the other automatically means "bad".

In short, you are not making any actual point, merely misusing language in lieu of making an actual point. An ineffectual approach we saw LOTS of in the failed attempts of anti abortion activists in the recent referendum.

But why should the belief that pregnancies are carried by females be thrown out the window? It is what certain feminists call 'female erasure'.

nozzferrahhtoo

political analyst wrote: »

But why should the belief that pregnancies are carried by females be thrown out the window? It is what certain feminists call 'female erasure'.

As I said, that was when they tried to change the law / definitions. YOU claimed they tried to "interfere with human nature" which they did not at all do.

Changing wording in law is.... changing wording in law. It has nothing to do with "human nature". Nothing in the link you offered was about someone "interfering with human nature". It WAS people trying to change the law/process AFTER the human nature part was out of the way.

But to answer your question anyway, who says that belief should be thrown out the window? Your link says they suggested it, it was rejected, and that rejection was then latter ramified further in the Court of Appeal.

You are therefore moaning about something that actually did not happen. Just something someone proposed SHOULD happen and they were rejected. Much like the user OMM 0000 above who was also moaning about something that was proposed, but then did not happen.

Why both of you feel the need to complain about people proposing things is beyond me I have to admit. If proposals you dislike get accepted THEN you have something to moan about. But people merely taking their proposals public and some of them being rejected is how society/politics work, or at least should work. I suggest get some paper. Design a bridge. Build it. Then get over it.

political analyst

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said, that was when they tried to change the law / definitions. YOU claimed they tried to "interfere with human nature" which they did not at all do.

Changing wording in law is.... changing wording in law. It has nothing to do with "human nature". Nothing in the link you offered was about someone "interfering with human nature". It WAS people trying to change the law/process AFTER the human nature part was out of the way.

But to answer your question anyway, who says that belief should be thrown out the window? Your link says they suggested it, it was rejected, and that rejection was then latter ramified further in the Court of Appeal.

You are therefore moaning about something that actually did not happen. Just something someone proposed SHOULD happen and they were rejected. Much like the user OMM 0000 above who was also moaning about something that was proposed, but then did not happen.

Why both of you feel the need to complain about people proposing things is beyond me I have to admit. If proposals you dislike get accepted THEN you have something to moan about. But people merely taking their proposals public and some of them being rejected is how society/politics work, or at least should work. I suggest get some paper. Design a bridge. Build it. Then get over it.

But gender self-declaration is a matter that involves a relatively very small number of people. So why would democratic governments feel obliged to bring in such legislation, which is demanded by small groups?

nozzferrahhtoo

It really is nice of you to increase my exposure by quoting my entire posts again while only replying to them with one liners. Do keep it up please.

But your one liner is just repeating what I already replied to. No one felt "obliged" to do anything. It was PROPOSED, and it was rejected. It was then taken to the appeals court and rejected AGAIN.

Maybe you are working with a dictionary very different to mine, but this looks like the opposite of "obliged" to me. Rather.... once again.... what it looks like is you and OMM 0000 above have an issue with people merely proposing things you do not like. Even if the proposals in question are roundly rejected. So much so in fact that OMM 0000 was so bothered by the proposals that he had to invent the outright falsehood that the proposals were signed into law.... when they blatantly and demonstrably weren't.... in order to support his being triggered by them.

As I said: Get over it. You live in a society where people can propose pretty much anything, at any time, and even petition people like the courts to consider those proposals. I asked OMM 0000 above and he ignored it. I ask again: What is your issue with that?

political analyst

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It really is nice of you to increase my exposure by quoting my entire posts again while only replying to them with one liners. Do keep it up please.

But your one liner is just repeating what I already replied to. No one felt "obliged" to do anything. It was PROPOSED, and it was rejected. It was then taken to the appeals court and rejected AGAIN.

Maybe you are working with a dictionary very different to mine, but this looks like the opposite of "obliged" to me. Rather.... once again.... what it looks like is you and OMM 0000 above have an issue with people merely proposing things you do not like. Even if the proposals in question are roundly rejected. So much so in fact that OMM 0000 was so bothered by the proposals that he had to invent the outright falsehood that the proposals were signed into law.... when they blatantly and demonstrably weren't.... in order to support his being triggered by them.

As I said: Get over it. You live in a society where people can propose pretty much anything, at any time, and even petition people like the courts to consider those proposals. I asked OMM 0000 above and he ignored it. I asked you above but you ignored it. I ask again: What is your issue with that?

Our government seemed to feel obliged to bring in gender self-declaration legislation in 2015.