Abortion

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2012 01:34PM

cynder wrote: »

Your interested in biology/human body and you cant look at blood?

Again where did I say this? I seem to be picking your words out of my mouth in every post at this point. Are you just hearing what you want to hear?

I can look at it but I do have a response to it. As do many other people. Nothing unusual about that.

Even if I could not look at it though, as you just totally invented out of thin air, I am not sure what your point is? Many people have strong interests in things that totally disgust them.

Rape, murder and so on are disgusting to many people, but they are interested in the facts, psychology and other things behind it. One can study the phenomenon of violence without ever becoming desensitized to it and in fact I would hope we never do.

cynder · 10-09-2012 01:52PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again where did I say this? I seem to be picking your words out of my mouth in every post at this point. Are you just hearing what you want to hear?

I can look at it but I do have a response to it. As do many other people. Nothing unusual about that.

Even if I could not look at it though, as you just totally invented out of thin air, I am not sure what your point is? Many people have strong interests in things that totally disgust them.

Rape, murder and so on are disgusting to many people, but they are interested in the facts, psychology and other things behind it. One can study the phenomenon of violence without ever becoming desensitized to it and in fact I would hope we never do.

In the first few sentances in your other thread you go on about the cells, you must have some interest in biology.

also braindead, the test they perform to see if one is brain dead is as follows : They will be looking to see if the person has any: response to pain; response to light by the pupil of each eye; blinking response when each eye is touched; eye movement or response to ice cold water when it is put into the ear canal,; cough or gag (swallowing) reaction when the back of the throat is touched; breathing when the person is disconnected from the ventilator .

Much of that cant be done to a baby in the womb, yet a baby at 16 weeks is sucking its thumb, a baby at 8 weeks can move its little stubs of arms and legs, a 12 week fetus can hiccup, a brain dead person cant move its limbs and suck its thumb.

Higher state of consciousness? newborns?

i will continue reading.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2012 01:56PM

cynder wrote: »

a baby at 16 weeks is sucking its thumb, a baby at 8 weeks can move its little stubs of arms and legs, a 12 week fetus can hiccup, a brain dead person cant move its limbs and suck its thumb.

And an amoeba will move towards or away from light depending on what type it is. The sperm that helped create the zygote/fetus in question will swim towards the egg as fast as it's little flagella will carry them. No consciousness required for any of this.

The things you are talking about are autonomic responses. They do not require a conscious mind or subjective experience in order to do or cause any of them.

These are the kinds of "arguments from emotion" that I refer to when I talk about pictures. Same approach but slightly different content. You are taking things that happen in the absence of any consciousness or subjective experience whatsoever... and hoping the "mark" will have an emotional response to this and thus want to protect them.

Also the tests for being Brain Dead are a lot more complex than what you just listed. We can measure brain activity directly now, none of the out dated techniques you just mentioned are really that important any more to my knowledge. And we actually have made GREAT advances in measuring that same activity in the developing fetus too. I would love to know where you got this list of ways to tell if someone is brain dead!

RDM_83 again · 10-09-2012 02:25PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And an amoeba will move towards or away from light depending on what type it is. The sperm that helped create the zygote/fetus in question will swim towards the egg as fast as it's little flagella will carry them. No consciousness required for any of this.

The things you are talking about are autonomic responses. They do not require a conscious mind or subjective experience in order to do or cause any of them.

These are the kinds of "arguments from emotion" that I refer to when I talk about pictures. Same approach but slightly different content. You are taking things that happen in the absence of any consciousness or subjective experience whatsoever... and hoping the "mark" will have an emotional response to this and thus want to protect them.

Also the tests for being Brain Dead are a lot more complex than what you just listed. We can measure brain activity directly now, none of the out dated techniques you just mentioned are really that important any more to my knowledge. And we actually have made GREAT advances in measuring that same activity in the developing fetus too. I would love to know where you got this list of ways to tell if someone is brain dead!

I actually agree with a lot of what you have posted*, just a question in relation to automatic responses, very young infants also have what could be automatic responses and very limited conciousness and self-awareness (especially in the case of self-awareness) or is your argument based around the involvement of higher brain function in response to 'pain'

"signaling pathways from the periphery to the deeper brain areas are more likely established along with the growth of the spino-thalamic tracts at
20 weeks of age, allowing for subcortical processing of pain
at much earlier ages."(1)

Now in relation to the 16 weeks argument you espoused in a previous post I;ve no problem but in relation to the 24weeks allowed in the UK would you lobby for a reduction of an upper limit that is already in place (and yes I understand that most integration of pain with higher brain function occurs at 26 weeks)

* its nice to have a rational poster, sometimes it seems its all rape/incest babies on one side and pretty little sucking thumbs on the other

(1) http://www.helsinki.fi/science/eeg/www%20no%20templates/Sampsan%20paperit%20PDFs/2000%20fetalpain.pdf

cynder · 10-09-2012 02:28PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

a baby at 16 weeks is sucking its thumb, a baby at 8 weeks can move its little stubs of arms and legs, a 12 week fetus can hiccup, a brain dead person cant move its limbs and suck its thumb.

And an amoeba will move towards or away from light depending on what type it is. The sperm that helped create the zygote/fetus in question will swim towards the egg as fast as it's little flagella will carry them. No consciousness required for any of this.

The things you are talking about are autonomic responses. They do not require a conscious mind or subjective experience in order to do or cause any of them.

These are the kinds of "arguments from emotion" that I refer to when I talk about pictures. Same approach but slightly different content. You are taking things that happen in the absence of any consciousness or subjective experience whatsoever... and hoping the "mark" will have an emotional response to this and thus want to protect them.

Also the tests for being Brain Dead are a lot more complex than what you just listed. We can measure brain activity directly now, none of the out dated techniques you just mentioned are really that important any more to my knowledge. And we actually have made GREAT advances in measuring that same activity in the developing fetus too. I would love to know where you got this list of ways to tell if someone is brain dead!

A friend of mines mother was resuscitated and found to be brain dead, they turned off her machine...

Not sure if it's great, to be locked in would be torture.

Any link?

By the way a brain dead person has no hope of survival, they are gone, a fetus has, it will only get stronger. There is no reason to terminate it, it's illogical, to stop it from reaching its full potential is illogical. The only reason to terminate a pregnancy is an emotional one.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2012 02:39PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I actually agree with a lot of what you have posted*, just a question in relation to automatic responses, very young infants also have what could be automatic responses and very limited conciousness and self-awareness (especially in the case of self-awareness) or is your argument based around the involvement of higher brain function in response to 'pain'

My argument tends to target the difference between having things like conscious and self awareness in ANY form.... and having absolutely none at all. Therefore the problem that infants have "less" of it is not really a problem I think my position suffers from.

I often use the analogy to radio here. If consciousness is radio waves then looking for it in a fetus < 20 weeks developed is akin to trying to find the radio waves not only before the broadcasting tower has been turned on.... but before the broadcasting tower has even been built.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

would you lobby for a reduction of an upper limit that is already in place

No. My 16 weeks was more said with countries in mind that did not already have abortion on demand. For example in Ireland. If I was campaigning with the pro choice movement in Ireland I would probably nail my colors to the mast at around 16 weeks.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

* its nice to have a rational poster, sometimes it seems its all rape/incest babies on one side and pretty little sucking thumbs on the other

Indeed. I differ from many of my peers in the pro choice movement in that I do not use the rape argument at all. I think it is self contradictory and I am not comfortable with it. To me either the fetus has rights or it does not.

If it does not then rape has nothing to do with it so it is not my problem.

If it DOES however then the fetus has rights and I am very uncomfortable with the notion that its rights can be negated because of a crime committed by a person who is not the fetus.... on another person who is not the fetus.

I am hard pushed to think of another crime where we punish X for a crime perpetrated on Y by Z.

Again it's not my problem as I do not see the fetus as having rights. But I cringe a little at the pro choice people who use the rape argument and even more at the anti abortion people who allow for rape as an exception.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2012 02:42PM

cynder wrote: »

By the way a brain dead person has no hope of survival, they are gone, a fetus has, it will only get stronger. There is no reason to terminate it, it's illogical, to stop it from reaching its full potential is illogical. The only reason to terminate a pregnancy is an emotional one.

My position is that the fetus has no rights. So the reasons people having for terminating it is irrelevant to me. If abortion is to be allowed then it is not really for me to equivocate over the reasons someone might choose to do it.

Take McDonalds food as a weird analogy. It is legal to sell it and for people to eat it. Now if someone wanted to eat a LOT of it with the express intention of getting obese and sick so they can stop working and start claiming disability allowance... clearly that would be to me an immoral reason to eat McDonalds and I could tut tut at it.

But I must remember that eating it is illegal so I can not do much more but tut tut.

Similarly if we allow abortion by choice it is not really our business WHY someone might have it. So if their reasons are emotional then "so what" would be my first question. My second would be "And what is wrong with that anyway?" as I think the emotions of an actual living person with rights far outweighs that of something that has none at all. In other words, emotional reasons are just as good as any really.

cynder · 10-09-2012 02:56PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I actually agree with a lot of what you have posted*, just a question in relation to automatic responses, very young infants also have what could be automatic responses and very limited conciousness and self-awareness (especially in the case of self-awareness) or is your argument based around the involvement of higher brain function in response to 'pain'

My argument tends to target the difference between having things like conscious and self awareness in ANY form.... and having absolutely none at all. Therefore the problem that infants have "less" of it is not really a problem I think my position suffers from.

I often use the analogy to radio here. If consciousness is radio waves then looking for it in a fetus < 20 weeks developed is akin to trying to find the radio waves not only before the broadcasting tower has been turned on.... but before the broadcasting tower has even been built.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

would you lobby for a reduction of an upper limit that is already in place

No. My 16 weeks was more said with countries in mind that did not already have abortion on demand. For example in Ireland. If I was campaigning with the pro choice movement in Ireland I would probably nail my colors to the mast at around 16 weeks.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

* its nice to have a rational poster, sometimes it seems its all rape/incest babies on one side and pretty little sucking thumbs on the other

Indeed. I differ from many of my peers in the pro choice movement in that I do not use the rape argument at all. I think it is self contradictory and I am not comfortable with it. To me either the fetus has rights or it does not.

If it does not then rape has nothing to do with it so it is not my problem.

If it DOES however then the fetus has rights and I am very uncomfortable with the notion that its rights can be negated because of a crime committed by a person who is not the fetus.... on another person who is not the fetus.

I am hard pushed to think of another crime where we punish X for a crime perpetrated on Y by Z.

Again it's not my problem as I do not see the fetus as having rights. But I cringe a little at the pro choice people who use the rape argument and even more at the anti abortion people who allow for rape as an exception.

You seem to lack emotion.

Ive said I could understand it, terminating due to rape, because I could understand how difficult it would be to carry around a child of a man who raped you and possibly violently assaulted you maybe even nearly killed you.

I wouldn't do it my self though.

Whats your problem with emotion?

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is an emotional one, a lot of our actions are controlled by emotions.

The only ones who seem to escape a lot of emotion are those with autism.

Why do you agree with abortion? Is the only reason because is not conscious? It it not brought on by an emotional woman? like everything else we live, we die, why is it acceptable to terminate a pregnancy when it's an emotional choice. It's stopping the natural order of things, stopping nature take its course, preventing a life from reaching its full potential unnaturally.

cynder · 10-09-2012 03:02PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

By the way a brain dead person has no hope of survival, they are gone, a fetus has, it will only get stronger. There is no reason to terminate it, it's illogical, to stop it from reaching its full potential is illogical. The only reason to terminate a pregnancy is an emotional one.

My position is that the fetus has no rights. So the reasons people having for terminating it is irrelevant to me. If abortion is to be allowed then it is not really for me to equivocate over the reasons someone might choose to do it.

Take McDonalds food as a weird analogy. It is legal to sell it and for people to eat it. Now if someone wanted to eat a LOT of it with the express intention of getting obese and sick so they can stop working and start claiming disability allowance... clearly that would be to me an immoral reason to eat McDonalds and I could tut tut at it.

But I must remember that eating it is illegal so I can not do much more but tut tut.

Similarly if we allow abortion by choice it is not really our business WHY someone might have it. So if their reasons are emotional then "so what" would be my first question. My second would be "And what is wrong with that anyway?" as I think the emotions of an actual living person with rights far outweighs that of something that has none at all. In other words, emotional reasons are just as good as any really.

You criticise me for having an emotional response for opposing abortion, yet the woman who has an abortion is doing it because she is influenced by her emotions.

eviltwin · 10-09-2012 03:03PM

cynder wrote: »

You criticise me for having an emotional response for opposing abortion, yet the woman who has an abortion is doing it because she is influenced by her emotions.

I think she's allowed to, its her unplanned pregnancy, not yours.

RDM_83 again · 10-09-2012 03:04PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. My 16 weeks was more said with countries in mind that did not already have abortion on demand. For example in Ireland. If I was campaigning with the pro choice movement in Ireland I would probably nail my colors to the mast at around 16 weeks.

I'm sorry but is that position not fairly hypocritical in that by not wanting a reduction of the term limits in countries such as the UK (rare as they are) your holding the position that even in your own opinion there is the possibility of some negative response to the fetus it should be allowed.
e.g. By not opposing this your prioritising different levels of conciousness/ capacity to feel 'pain' but since this is legally allowed its ok.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My argument tends to target the difference between having things like conscious and self awareness in ANY form.... and having absolutely none at all. Therefore the problem that infants have "less" of it is not really a problem I think my position suffers from.

Also not a problem if your strict in your 16 weeks limit but there is the issue that
"The first neurones to link the cortex with the rest of the brain are
monoamine pathways, and reach the cortex from about 16 weeks of gestation. Their activation could be associated with unpleasant conscious experience, even if not pain."

http://65.57.252.248/abortion/fetal_pain/BJOGfetalpain1999.pdf

argirl · 10-09-2012 03:10PM

tomtherobot wrote: »

But what is it if it's not contraception? All's i'm hearing is it's complicated or it's a difficult choice, explain?

If it's not killing and it's not contraception what is it? And please don't bring in these extreme medical emergencies that's very unfair on those people.

Just shut up.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2012 03:21PM

cynder wrote: »

You seem to lack emotion. Whats your problem with emotion?

I think we can do without the personal ad hominem comments and insults here thanks. Lets stick to the posts and the arguments without making personal comments about the posters.

cynder wrote: »

Why do you agree with abortion?

Because I can see no arguments against it. I am a firm believer in the mantra "Innocent until proven guilty" and if I can see no arguments for disallowing people to do X, then I will defend their right to do X. Simple as that.

Unless, and until, someone presents to me some cogent arguments, data, evidence or reasoning for why abortion should be prevented before, say, 16 weeks then I will continue to campaign and debate for their right to do so.

cynder wrote: »

It's stopping the natural order of things, stopping nature take its course

So?

I do not mean to be short with you but really: So?

We stop nature taking its course all the time. We immunize against flu for example. We help infertile couples conceive. We combat darkness at night using electric lighting. We artificially increase the yield of crops massively by using our technology. We combat the "natural" order of things all the time. Why should we not???

cynder wrote: »

You criticise me for having an emotional response for opposing abortion, yet the woman who has an abortion is doing it because she is influenced by her emotions.

I did not criticize anyone for having an emotional response. This is now the third time already I have had to pull your words out of my mouth and it is becoming rather tiresome now.

What I did criticize is the use of "Arguments from emotion" fallacies in the abortion debate. Massively different.

daisybelle2008 · 10-09-2012 03:25PM

cynder wrote: »

You criticise me for having an emotional response for opposing abortion, yet the woman who has an abortion is doing it because she is influenced by her emotions.

Terminating a pregnancy is an 'emotional' issue for you. You are 'emotionally' opposed to abortion, I am 'emotionally' in favour of it. How do you know whose emotional response is 'right' or 'wrong'.
How do you know your emotions are superiour to mine on this issue? You only know what feels right or wrong to you.

You cannot know that abortion is 'wrong' for anyone else but yourself. If I am in a situation that I want to terminate a pregnancy, and it felt right for me, then, I would like the opportunity to have an abortion. That is why I am pro-choice. I want any women when she is in the exact situation to have the freedom to choice what feels right for her, be that abortion or continuing the pregnancy.

Ultimately if you don't want an abortion, don't have one, but you absolutely have no idea if it is right for me or not, how could you? To impose your opinion on me makes no sense. What makes it more 'right' or 'wrong' than mine.

cynder · 10-09-2012 03:31PM

So even though the fetus will grow into a Human, it doesn't deserve a chance at life.

So if we terminate all these potential humans ( all) nothing will be lost?

Oh except of course humanity.

And your pension

eviltwin · 10-09-2012 03:34PM

cynder wrote: »

So even though the fetus will grow into a Human, it doesn't deserve a chance at life.

So if we terminate all these potential humans ( all) nothing will be lost?

Oh except of cause humanity.

Do you mourn the many more babies lost through miscarriage?

You can't stop women wanting abortions, we'd all love to see only planned, wanted pregnancies but that's never going to happen. We have to be mature here and address the issue, in the days this thread has been up hundreds of women have made that journey. Talking about the rights and wrongs isn't helping them find alternatives. If you care so much why not do something practical to help them.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2012 03:35PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm sorry but is that position not fairly hypocritical in that by not wanting a reduction of the term limits in countries such as the UK (rare as they are) your holding the position that even in your own opinion there is the possibility of some negative response to the fetus it should be allowed.

No no contradiction or hypocracy here at all. Perhaps I could be clearer however.

The reason is that I have an absolute upper limit in my mind as to when abortion becomes a problem for me. You are right, and perhaps I answered too hastily, that I would likely lend my voice to those wanting to reduce limits which go above my personal cut off. Where _exactly_ that cut off is I am not 100% sure even myself but yes it is around 24 weeks.

What I meant though is that when campaigning for abortion rights in other countries which do not have them yet, I would be perfectly ok with a law coming in at that upper limit. However for subjective and political reasons only I would pin my colors more readily to a campaign aiming for a law at 16 weeks. The reasons are that it removes many of the "What if" arguments leveled against 24 weeks, the lower the number you campaign for the more people who are likely to fall in line with you politically AND given 88% abortions happen before 12 weeks and nearly 95% before 16 I find 16 actually serves what most people want and 24 weeks is just superfluous to requirements anyway.

So my choice of 16 over 24 is subjective and politically motivated but if Ireland came in with a 24 week law tomorrow I would likely not argue against it. If they came out with a 30 week one then yes, I most likely would lend my voice to reducing it and I apologise if I answered that too hastily before.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

"The first neurones to link the cortex with the rest of the brain are monoamine pathways, and reach the cortex from about 16 weeks of gestation. Their activation could be associated with unpleasant conscious experience, even if not pain."

But when are they activated? The line above does not say. In fact the wording of it is kind of misleading. It tells you the neurons link at 16 weeks to the cortex, but not when they are actually activated. One could read the above as saying they are activated at 16 weeks... or one could read the above as saying they reach the cortex at 16 weeks but are activated some time later and at THAT point there may be conscious experience.

Certainly if such were to be established as true I would be more than willing to pull back my personal abortion cut off limits. Right now it is a lot of "What iffery" and as the next line in your link says "Research in these areas is urgently required." The link also says however "The physical system for nociception is present and functional by 26 weeks and it seems likely that the fetus is capable of feeling pain from this stage".

Also K.J.S. Anand, a researcher of newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM say "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks."

So yes I am more than amenable to data that tells us that subjective experience and consciousness arises earlier than we thought. Until it gets past the "what if" stages however I am content with my current position.

Khannie · 10-09-2012 03:37PM

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

You cannot know that abortion is 'wrong' for anyone else but yourself. If I am in a situation that I want to terminate a pregnancy, and it felt right for me, then, I would like the opportunity to have an abortion. That is why I am pro-choice. I want any women when she is in the exact situation to have the freedom to choice what feels right for her, be that abortion or continuing the pregnancy.

Ultimately if you don't want an abortion, don't have one, but you absolutely have no idea if it is right for me or not, how could you? To impose your opinion on me makes no sense. What makes it more 'right' or 'wrong' than mine.

It's so easy to extend this argument to point out how ridiculous it is. Let's pretend you're the victim of a horrific crime. You feel in your situation that it is right that you should be allowed to commute a death sentence on the person who committed the crime against you. By your logic, you should be allowed to, yet we as a society dictate that it is not allowed.

We impose our opinion (as you put it) based on our beliefs of what is right or wrong all the time. The entire law books are rules about what you can or cannot do because people generally agree that they are right or wrong. Abortion is the only area that I can see where people insist that the person should be allowed do what they want despite morally disagreeing with it themselves.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2012 03:37PM

cynder wrote: »

So even though the fetus will grow into a Human, it doesn't deserve a chance at life.

You do not know it will grow into anything actually. Neither of us can tell the future. And in fact nature is a great abortion doctor itself with a much larger % of pregnancies terminating themselves before 12 weeks then you likely guess.

But no, all I hear when you tell me X will grow into Y is you telling my that X is not Y now. If the fetus will "grow into a human" then what you have implicitly just told me is "The fetus is not human".

As such, I do not see why it deserves "Human Rights" if even you do not call it "Human".

cynder · 10-09-2012 03:42PM

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

You criticise me for having an emotional response for opposing abortion, yet the woman who has an abortion is doing it because she is influenced by her emotions.

Terminating a pregnancy is an 'emotional' issue for you. You are 'emotionally' opposed to abortion, I am 'emotionally' in favour of it. How do you know whose emotional response is 'right' or 'wrong'.
How do you know your emotions are superiour to mine on this issue? You only know what feels right or wrong to you.

You cannot know that abortion is 'wrong' for anyone else but yourself. If I am in a situation that I want to terminate a pregnancy, and it felt right for me, then, I would like the opportunity to have an abortion. That is why I am pro-choice. I want any women when she is in the exact situation to have the freedom to choice what feels right for her, be that abortion or continuing the pregnancy.

Ultimately if you don't want an abortion, don't have one, but you absolutely have no idea if it is right for me or not, how could you? To impose your opinion on me makes no sense. What makes it more 'right' or 'wrong' than mine.

I think 2 referendums in Ireland and in both irelands majority voted no.

It's a democracy. I'm not the only one....

Majority rules... You want an abortion the UK isnt far away.

eviltwin · 10-09-2012 03:44PM

Khannie wrote: »

It's so easy to extend this argument to point out how ridiculous it is. Let's pretend you're the victim of a horrific crime. You feel in your situation that it is right that you should be allowed to commute a death sentence on the person who committed the crime against you. By your logic, you should be allowed to, yet we as a society dictate that it is not allowed.

We impose our opinion (as you put it) based on our beliefs of what is right or wrong all the time. The entire law books are rules about what you can or cannot do because people generally agree that they are right or wrong. Abortion is the only area that I can see where people insist that the person should be allowed do what they want despite morally disagreeing with it themselves.

The difference being women can get abortions by going overseas or doing it themselves at home. They have a choice. In your example your confined to the laws of the land.

A better example would be the many cases where victims of crime ask the courts not to jail the culprit. I often wonder how someone who was wronged do that but as RDM_83again says its their decision to make, they should be respected for it.

eviltwin · 10-09-2012 03:45PM

cynder wrote: »

I think 2 referendums in Ireland and in both irelands majority voted no.

It's a democracy. I'm not the only one....

Majority rules... You want an abortion the UK isnt far away.

Out of interest if the laws changed to allow abortion would you accept that?

charlietheminxx · 10-09-2012 03:47PM

cynder wrote: »

I think 2 referendums in Ireland and in both irelands majority voted no.

It's a democracy. I'm not the only one....

Majority rules... You want an abortion the UK isnt far away.

Those referendums were 10 and 20 years ago respectively. I was 15 when the last one was held. Some of our youngest voters were only 8 at the time. The electorate changes and I think it could be a different story now.

Khannie · 10-09-2012 03:49PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Out of interest if the laws changed to allow abortion would you accept that?

Sure what choice do you have? Except to move.

If a majority voted to alter the constitution to rule out abortion, would you accept that?

Khannie · 10-09-2012 03:51PM

eviltwin wrote: »

The difference being women can get abortions by going overseas or doing it themselves at home. They have a choice. In your example your confined to the laws of the land.

Ah that old chestnut..."sure they can still get it....we should just bring it in here". Doing it themselves at home is illegal btw (unless you're counting the MAP).

eviltwin · 10-09-2012 03:51PM

Khannie wrote: »

Sure what choice do you have? Except to move.

If a majority voted to alter the constitution to rule out abortion, would you accept that?

Yes I would.

cynder · 10-09-2012 03:52PM

eviltwin wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

So even though the fetus will grow into a Human, it doesn't deserve a chance at life.

So if we terminate all these potential humans ( all) nothing will be lost?

Oh except of cause humanity.

Do you mourn the many more babies lost through miscarriage?

You can't stop women wanting abortions, we'd all love to see only planned, wanted pregnancies but that's never going to happen. We have to be mature here and address the issue, in the days this thread has been up hundreds of women have made that journey. Talking about the rights and wrongs isn't helping them find alternatives. If you care so much why not do something practical to help them.

Yes it's sad, but a natural occurrence, we all die at some point. A termination isn't natural.

Someone who is killed in a car crash at 22 is worse than someone who dies from a heart attack at 80. The 80 year old got to live their life, the 22 year old only had a short time.

Why can't the women have the baby they have made, look after the baby they made, live up to thier parental responsibilities.

They don't want to, they want the life they had before and a baby is inconvenience.

eviltwin · 10-09-2012 03:55PM

Khannie wrote: »

Ah that old chestnut..."sure they can still get it....we should just bring it in here". Doing it themselves at home is illegal btw (unless you're counting the MAP).

No my point was that you can't stop women having abortions. Its nothing like the example you gave.

Khannie I know women who have ended up in hospitals after a home abortion, not once were the police ever informed.

Mickeroo · 10-09-2012 03:56PM

cynder wrote: »

Yes it's sad, but a natural occurrence, we all die at some point. A termination isn't natural.

Someone who is killed in a car crash at 22 is worse than someone who dies from a heart attack at 80. The 80 year old got to live their life, the 22 year old only had a short time.

Why can't the women have the baby they have made, look after the baby they made, live up to thier parental responsibilities.

They don't want to, they want the life they had before and a baby is inconvenience.

If you had to choose between saving a fetus in the early stages (say first 16 weeks) of pregnancy or the 22 year old, which would you choose out of interest?

cynder · 10-09-2012 04:00PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

cynder wrote: »

So even though the fetus will grow into a Human, it doesn't deserve a chance at life.

You do not know it will grow into anything actually. Neither of us can tell the future. And in fact nature is a great abortion doctor itself with a much larger % of pregnancies terminating themselves before 12 weeks then you likely guess.

But no, all I hear when you tell me X will grow into Y is you telling my that X is not Y now. If the fetus will "grow into a human" then what you have implicitly just told me is "The fetus is not human".

As such, I do not see why it deserves "Human Rights" if even you do not call it "Human".

I can tell you one thing the baby I saw in me at 8 weeks, I knew it was a baby, at 19 weeks I was told my baby was a girl. At 39 weeks she arrived and is soon to be 13.

My 8 week fetus wasn't going to be a dog or a cat, or a cow or a monkey, it could only ever be human.

Abortion

Comments