- Joined
- 4 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 3,783
How about you focus on the majority of abortions rather than the statistical anomalies?
Wow. Great argument.
Wouldn't be the only side of the argument to be doing so...
Aborted Babies incinerated to heat Hospital!!
- Thread starter koolpc
- Start date
How about you focus on the majority of abortions rather than the statistical anomalies?
Wow. Great argument.
Wouldn't be the only side of the argument to be doing so...
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
The question mark is, as you already know, redundant.
I wasn't talking to you. Or did you forget to log into your koolpc account when you quoted me?
Will you be doing the same too so restricting it primarily to first trimester abortions where "bundle of cells" is pretty close to fact?
Indeed. The only "Logical" point for considering a new life is conception.
(To use a computer analogy, conception is the point at which you click the "Run" button, up until that point it is just data)
One might make a reasonable philosophical break point at first breath. But really all the other supposed break points between life/not_life are just sophistry used to justify different viewpoints.
If you are in any doubt as to whether or not a 12 week foetus is a Baby, go up to a woman who has just experienced a 12 week miscarriage and tell her that it is of no matter, it was just a blob of snot and not really alive!
I am pretty much on the fence about the issue, indeed I dont really have any issue with eugenics etc. (And i certainly see no point in prolonging the life of severely ill/malformed babies that have no hope of long term life-but that is another issue)
However
What does annoy me about the (Strong) pro-abortion camp is the way in which they seek to deny, both to themselves and everybody else, that abortion is simply about killing unwanted people (Unwanted for whatever reason) and that arguments in favour of abortion are basically arguments about under what circumstances it is acceptable to do the killing.
which is really what it is all about!
What about fertilisation? Surely that is your actual starting point?
To be fair it is pretty much how some women get through it. By making the decision that it was "just a bundle of cells that wasn't viable" rather than a baby. I am not even going to attempt to put numbers to it, but I know it was how at least one woman (and her husband) dealt with it.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 914
- Location
- Darwen
I would imagine most of the people who are against abortions have never been in the position to having to decide if they should have one. It is very easy to judge from the outside looking in. I couldn't force any woman to keep and look after a baby that was conceived through being raped. Any person that could deny a woman this option should be ashamed of themselves.
Haha, yup, I'm all for this, retrospective abortion FTW!
Back on topic, I don't see how burning remains for heat is any different ethically to organ donation, it's taking what is essentially a waste product and using it for something useful.
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 3,783
Oh, I'm not allowed to comment on a thread on a public forum?
You made a stupid comment of no relevance, and potentially defaming against someone, and then get annoyed when I point it out?
78% were under 10 weeks, the remaining 22% were greater than 10 weeks. This isn't negligible.
Not to mention that citing emotive, highly unlikely cases (14yr being attacked in an alley resulting in pregnancy) isn't comparable with talking about when the abortion takes place?
Highly unlikely?
Stranger rape is rare, yes, but absolutely not 'unlikely'.
Rape certainly isn't rare.
Abortion and the reasons behind having one aren't back and white, and the term 'murderer' can not be applied to females who choose to abort a pregnancy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
I wonder, has anybody actually quantified the negative (or positive) effects that can come from forcing a woman to complete an unwanted pregnancy? I agree with most of the pro-life posters who have suggested that the majority of terminations occur not because of rape or genetic issues but due to "lifestyle" choices.
Given the difficulty in finding placements for children requiring adoption there is a risk inherent in restricting abortion, the potential negative impacts from a life in care is well documented. In addition to that surely there are risks associated with forcing a woman who has become pregnant by accident, when she doesn't want or cannot afford a child, to become a Mother regardless of her wishes. The financial aspect carries a physical risk for Mother and child in the long run and a child growing up in a home where they are not wanted or possibly even resented is not an ideal situation.
It interests me that whenever I've had this debate it tends to be men who shout loudest, this is from both sides of the fence but particularly the pro-life angle. I saw a rather interesting thing online where a vocal pro-life campaigner, who was engaged in trying to get abortion banned from his home state, was asked what he though went through a woman's mind when they considered abortion, what would lead to a woman wanting an abortion as it were. He was unable to answer the question and tripped over himself quite spectacularly.
I'm rambling a bit here because I'm rather torn on how the debate should be aired. On the one hand the idea of gender inequality is anathema to me, but on the other I don't think that men who will not have to deal with the majority of the problems arising from this topic should have an equal voice in deciding what is right and wrong. I think it's evidenced by this thread, men run the risk of dictating to women on a subject that they can't really grasp in it's entirety.
Given the difficulty in finding placements for children requiring adoption there is a risk inherent in restricting abortion, the potential negative impacts from a life in care is well documented. In addition to that surely there are risks associated with forcing a woman who has become pregnant by accident, when she doesn't want or cannot afford a child, to become a Mother regardless of her wishes. The financial aspect carries a physical risk for Mother and child in the long run and a child growing up in a home where they are not wanted or possibly even resented is not an ideal situation.
It interests me that whenever I've had this debate it tends to be men who shout loudest, this is from both sides of the fence but particularly the pro-life angle. I saw a rather interesting thing online where a vocal pro-life campaigner, who was engaged in trying to get abortion banned from his home state, was asked what he though went through a woman's mind when they considered abortion, what would lead to a woman wanting an abortion as it were. He was unable to answer the question and tripped over himself quite spectacularly.
I'm rambling a bit here because I'm rather torn on how the debate should be aired. On the one hand the idea of gender inequality is anathema to me, but on the other I don't think that men who will not have to deal with the majority of the problems arising from this topic should have an equal voice in deciding what is right and wrong. I think it's evidenced by this thread, men run the risk of dictating to women on a subject that they can't really grasp in it's entirety.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'm assuming that you're using the statistics for England & Wales from 2011? Is there any particular reason why you've chosen 10 weeks as a cut-off point - is there some medical significance to this point? If so it's probably worth noting that the trend appears to be towards having the abortion at 10 weeks or earlier rather than otherwise and indeed that 91% of abortions are before 13 weeks. Source, P9 shows the trend.
However it is perhaps worth leaving aside the statistics for a second - what gives us as a society (or you as an individual) the right to override the choice of a woman to determine whether or not she should have an abortion? Her right to determine whether she carries a child to term or not is hers alone as far as I'm concerned, other people may offer guidance where appropriate and explain such risks as there are but I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why the ultimate decision is not for the woman to take - if someone has a reasoned argument then I'd be interested to hear it.
How many of that 22% where still in the 12-13 weeks of the first trimester? The standard pro-life image for anti abortion campaigners is the late term image of a child which make up an incredibly small number of abortions for example.
But if you are looking at legislating against abortion you need to actually consider all cases, which will include the outliers.
For me though it doesn't matter, as I do not feel I have the right to force a woman to carry a child to term if she does not want to. I do not have that right.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,907
- Location
- Rutland
I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly.
I hadn't seen this new use of the word 'logical' meaning 'agreeing with my own opinion'!
There is logical and scientific rationale for various different standpoints on this, it seems that you just only accept that rationale for the one you desire to.
Your very own analogy doesn't work anyway. Surely the actual writing of the program would be analogous to the baby's development within the womb.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Funny you said this because there is a good Anime series that allowed this to happen but you didn't find that out till late in the series.
To quickly sum it up, the story is set in the future where the human race has Psychokinesis and other powers where their powers can easy go out of control and go on a killing rampage where they can easy kill entire towns before stopped.
So to stop this, they classed everyone who was under 21 not human and had no human rights and allowed them to be "aborted" if they was classed as unsafe. Thoughout their "schooling" they had many tests and exams to test their character and if found "wanting" like if they lied or stole or did something bad, they would likely be aborted and everyone's memories would be altered to remove the memory of them.
So to stop this, they classed everyone who was under 21 not human and had no human rights and allowed them to be "aborted" if they was classed as unsafe. Thoughout their "schooling" they had many tests and exams to test their character and if found "wanting" like if they lied or stole or did something bad, they would likely be aborted and everyone's memories would be altered to remove the memory of them.