The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Andrew Beef wrote: »

No, but an offence of “uteral infanticide” or something like that.

It is morally wrong.

I don't believe that it is morally wrong. Why should your belief top mine?

Sweetemotion

kylith wrote: »

I don't believe that it is morally wrong. Why should your belief top mine?

Why do you think yours should top theirs?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Why do you think yours should top theirs?

If we repeal the 8th everyone’s beliefs can be upheld.
Those that want abortion, can have it. Those that don’t, can continue their lives as normal.
Everyone can have their own individual say on the matter.
The current situation means that those with similar views to PP’s come out on top.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Why do you think yours should top theirs?

My belief has no effect on people who believe differently, no-one will be forced to have an abortion based on my belief.

However women will be denied medical care based on the opposing belief, and will be forced to bear children that they don't want or can't afford, or have to spend thousands travelling to the UK. Why should someone's belief that a fetus is alive force people who believe differently to do things they don't want to?

pleas advice wrote: »

that ignores the issue, you're forcing your view on society, as a whole.

No I'm not. You are.

pleas advice wrote: »

that ignores the issue, you're forcing your view on society, as a whole.

How? Please explain how? Unless we will be performing abortions on women against their will, how will we be imposing our views?

kylith wrote: »

My belief has no effect on people who believe differently, no-one will be forced to have an abortion based on my belief.

ignores the issue

Why should someone's belief the fact that a fetus is alive force people who believe differently refuse to acknowledge this do things they don't want to?

why can't 'pro-choice' people have the courage of their convictions, acknowledge it is a live, genetically separate, human entity.

And then say that 'my rights trump this entities rights'

pleas advice wrote: »

ignores the issue

why can't 'pro-choice' people have the courage of their convictions, acknowledge it is a live, genetically separate, human entity.

And then say that 'my rights trump this entities rights'

If it was a separate human entity we could just deliver the fetus at ANY gestation because it wouldn’t be relying on the mother.
We could then just pass the fetus over to social services and the woman could move on with her life.

Except that can’t happen. Fetuses cannot grow or thrive without the mother as host until at least 24 weeks gestation. Minimum.
So before that time, the baby is very much part of her. Because if it wasn’t, removing it at any time would pose no issues.
We would have no need for abortions.

So that just knocks that little notion of yours on the head. While it depends on her for survival, it’s very much part of her. And it should be up to her what happens to it.

'genetically separate' though

pleas advice wrote: »

ignores the issue

why can't 'pro-choice' people have the courage of their convictions, acknowledge it is a live, genetically separate, human entity.

And then say that 'my rights trump this entities rights'

Because that is not a fact. That it is alive is your opinion. It may be human tissue but I believe that it is not a separate entity until it is capable of living separately. At the timescales we are talking about it doesn't have a functioning brain.

pleas advice wrote: »

'genetically separate' though

So?

pleas advice wrote: »

'genetically separate' though

Irrelevant.

Water John

If genetically separate is the measure, then the MAP should be banned also.
That generally prevents a fused egg from implanting.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So?

so, it is a distinct human entity. which should afford it some rights, or some consideration from society as a whole,

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Fetuses cannot grow or thrive without the mother as host until at least 24 weeks gestation. Minimum.
So before that time, the baby is very much part of her.

While it depends on her for survival, it’s very much part of her. And it should be up to her what happens to it.

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

pleas advice wrote: »

so, it is a distinct human entity. which should afford it some rights, or some consideration from society as a whole,

It is not distinct. It is dependent on the woman’s body as a life support system. Therefore she should be allowed to decide whether she wants that or not.

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

'genetically separate' though

Genetically separate - what do you mean by that? It's genes come from it's mum and dad, word origin Genesis, as in the bible. How do you imagine it survives in the womb of the woman if nature did not allow it to consume food from that woman?

as in, it is not akin to a toenail clipping, or a scab, or sperm, or egg,

pleas advice wrote: »

so, it is a distinct human entity. which should afford it some rights, or some consideration from society as a whole,

It is a non-sentient entity of the genus Homo homo sapiens which is utterly dependent on a host for survival. It is incapable of surviving unless it draws all of it's nutrients from the host. It is not capable of thought, emotion, or react to stimuli.

It is 'alive' only in the narrowest sense of the word, a more accurate term would be it exists.

It's host, however, - baring accident/rape - is generally a sentient born human being capable of independent living, thought, emotion, and reaction to stimuli.

To say the two are equal is utter nonsense.

To insist that a woman has to host this dependent entity [your word] against her will is an appalling breach of the humans rights of a living human being.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

What are you talking about?
Hospitals frequently turn off life support when it is deemed the person is no longer sentient.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What are you talking about?
Hospitals frequently turn off life support when it is deemed the person is no longer sentient.

And keep it switched on when the person looks like they will live.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

And keep it switched on when the person looks like they will live.

Not quite.
When it is deemed there is no brain function but the body is technically alive they stop feeding - essentially meaning a technically alive but not sentient person starves to death.

Sentience is the determining factor. A fetus under 12 weeks old is not sentient.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

Unless the homeless person in hospital is using another person as a human incubator then the situations are not the same and cannot be compared.

captbarnacles

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Fetuses cannot grow or thrive without the mother as host until at least 24 weeks gestation. Minimum.
So before that time, the baby is very much part of her.

While it depends on her for survival, it’s very much part of her. And it should be up to her what happens to it.

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

Hospitals are not equal to a woman's womb. Society is NOT allowed to demand use of your body and this right even extends to when you are dead.

captbarnacles

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Fetuses cannot grow or thrive without the mother as host until at least 24 weeks gestation. Minimum.
So before that time, the baby is very much part of her.

While it depends on her for survival, it’s very much part of her. And it should be up to her what happens to it.

A homeless person in a coma is completely dependent on the hospital. That doesn't give the hospital the right to pull the plug whenever they want. If we can keep a human being alive (and in the case of an unborn baby, keep them alive so they become an independent human being when they are born), i believe we have a duty to keep them alive.

Women are not vessels for society to use to produce children. Your hospital analogy says clearly how you think. Society cannot demand use of your body and this right extends beyond death.

captbarnacles wrote: »

Women are not vessels for society to use to produce children. Your hospital analogy says clearly how you think. Society cannot demand use of your body and this right extends beyond death.

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

as in, it is not akin to a toenail clipping, or a scab, or sperm, or egg,

Really? While one can argue [if one so chooses] that a feotus in the womb is a genetically separate entity, completely unlike and distinct from a toenail clipping, or a scab [or even a rib], i doubt if such a claim could be made in respect of genetics when it comes to an egg or sperm. I believe that such a claim would be turning the whole basis of human reproduction, and church knowledge and teachings of same, on its head. IMO, it sound's a mightily strange theory not entirely related to abortion.

'Genetically seperate, human entity' though

KKkitty

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yes it can. If a child stumbles on a cliff edge and is hanging over the edge, the state requires you to pull him up before he falls. You can't just sit back and continue eating your ice cream while he's screaming for your help.

They are called "Duty To Rescue" laws. You can't claim bodily autonomy and just do nothing.

A duty to rescue is a concept in tort law that arises in a number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue )

Ok so by your analogy someone has to be born before they can be rescued? They have to be an actual human being outside of the womb before they can be saved? I'm going to stop you right there. As with many countries women's rights, health and general well-being have been disgraceful. We have to change this. We have to be better. Stop oppressing women and let them make the right decisions for them.