Morality of advances in science relating to pregnancy.

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.

ohnonotgmail

political analyst wrote: »

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

obliged by who and how was this obligation expressed?

ED E

political analyst wrote: »

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?

Wheelchair users are a small minority, lets do nothing to help them as theyre not a big cohort?

Is that your argument? Really? Feel like I've lost 10 IQ points just by reading the first and last page of this thread.

nozzferrahhtoo

political analyst wrote: »

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

So now you are switching stories. You started this conversation by complaining about someone messing with human nature. When I showed nothing of the sort happened you simply side stepped that and changed the narrative to one about the government having to change laws. When I pointed out the OPPOSITE actually happened in the case YOU brought up.... you have now switched to an entirely different thing in an entirely different country.

I have no interest in trying to hold on to a slippery fish. If you can not stick to, and discuss, one narrative but are going to keep hopping aside every time I reply to the guff you posted before.... we will get nowhere.

Again: We live in a society where anyone can propose pretty much anything at any time. They can take their proposals to policy makers and law makers and courts and so on at any time. This is a GOOD thing. Most proposals get rejected (even if people like OMM 0000 try to tell you they were accepted and signed into law where they blatantly and demonstrably weren't).

If something gets accepted that you do not like or agree with then it is open to you to bring your own counter proposals, cases, campaigns, free speech and so forth. If you have a problem with 2015 legislation in THIS country.... then do something about it.

I myself spent countless hours ACTIVELY working and campaigning during the recent referendum on abortion for example. I worked hard with many other people to get changes I disagreed with changed back again. And we won.

So you can imagine I have little to no time for people who merely moan about legislation they disagree with from the armchair behind a monitor. If you have a problem with it WORK to change it.

political analyst

ED E wrote: »

Wheelchair users are a small minority, lets do nothing to help them as theyre not a big cohort?

Is that your argument? Really? Feel like I've lost 10 IQ points just by reading the first and last page of this thread.

How is the feeling of being born in the wrong body comparable to being wheelchair-bound? What's more important than being able to get up and walk and run?

nozzferrahhtoo

political analyst wrote: »

How is the feeling of being born in the wrong body comparable to being wheelchair-bound?

The user made no such comparison. The user was talking about how the QUANTITY of people affected by an issue is no argument as to whether we can, or should, work to affect their situation. The quantity of people affected by an issue is not always relevant. For example we recently had a referendum on Gay Marriage. What % of our culture do you think are gay? And what % of them do you think wish to marry? The actual end quantity of people affected by that referendum (which I also worked hard on, and we also won) is probably relatively very small.

political analyst wrote: »

What's more important than being able to get up and walk and run?

A hell of a lot of things actually. Freedom and well being spring to mind for example. There are people who have sacrificed their ability to walk, run, or at times even sacrificed their very lives.... for a person, place, or ideal too. Showing that for many people there are many things indeed which they would rank as more important than their ability to move around, or even live.

Actually alien limb syndrome is a very good argument here. Do you know there are people who suffer from an issue where they feel their limb does not actually belong to them? So much so that this impacts on their well being so deeply.... that these people seek to have that limb removed. And if the jurisdiction they live in does not allow for this, they have been known to save the money and travel to other countries to have it performed. And they return espousing all kinds of well being and relief once it is done.

So, for such people, it is transparently clear that something was more important to them than their ability to walk or run or do whatever it was they were previously using that limb for.

Is it so earth shattering a concept for you that people have different sets of priorities and agenda than you?

El_Duderino 09

political analyst wrote: »

How is the feeling of being born in the wrong body comparable to being wheelchair-bound? What's more important than being able to get up and walk and run?

The poster brought up the number of people it affects because that was exactly your argument (they quoted the point you made about facilitating people based on numbers). As soon as they brought up another group with relatively low numbers, you didn't think low numbers was important either. So i take it we're in agreement that the number of people it affects isn't the best way to evaluate whether or not we should act.

nolivesmatter

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

I agree. And not that I think anyone here is advocating it but unfortunately not everyone in the world views a 7 month old unborn as a child that should be protected as much as possible. Barring medical necessity there is no good reason to abort a child at that point.

nozzferrahhtoo

Agreed. But thankfully the number of people holding the position you have an issue with appears to be small. Relative to many other people I have been extremely active on the abortion debate for over 20 years now. It took me years to form my own opinion of it. And years more espousing and defending it. And I have met all sorts in both of those stages.

And pro choice or anti choice I have found that just about everyone believes in SOME restrictions on abortion. Usually temporal ones, and usually long before 7 months.

I could count the number of people, out of 1000s, that I have met who believe in abortion up to birth on the fingers of my hands. And most of them were in fact here on boards. Though one of them turned out to be an "extremist poe" of the pro-choice position and flipped pretty quickly and conveniently to an equally extremist anti-choice position when the concept of an actual abortion referendum loomed. Which made me suspect their extremist pro-choice position was a fabricated act to "poe" that position and make it look bad.