Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

[thenewoc]

It depends if the choices are regardless of circumstances. If you make an arbitrary law that it's only allowed up to x weeks then it would need to include circumstances where the law included exceptions but whilst the foetus is still under for instance 24 weeks. I think 24 weeks is a bit on the high side though, what is the minimum number of weeks for a premature baby to have a fair chance within SCBU? At what point would a mother discover if the foetus has a disability?

 

[bigmike20vt]

I am pro choice, 100% behind that... but pro choice until birth is simply a none starter.

I mean, what doctor in their right mind would kill a baby which is fully formed and completely capable of surviving on its own, it is just that it has not popped out yet?

I think the current UK limit of 24 weeks is fair, if it were 20 or 22 weeks if no underlying issues or 24 if late problems were discovered i would be a little more comfortable with it personally. I had the discussion with my wife and I only agreed to have a child after we both agreed that if serious issues were detected early doors it would be terminated, I would have respected my wifes decision to disagree but if not i would have got the snip. I totally respect parents who them selves choose to have a child regardless, it is a personal decision and i dont think people outside of that couple should judge one way or the other.... but after 24 weeks you have made your decision... event if that decision came by inaction if you catch my drift.

Yes I am a man and not carrying the baby so my vote should not be quite as powerful as the mums, but this is potentially my child too so my voice should be considered as well imo..... but 24 weeks is more than enough time to make your mind up imo and no doctor should ever be asked to "kill" because once fully viable that is the point we are at a healthy baby just because a week before the due date the parents have a change of heart.

 

[dowie]

I'm not sure which box to tick, so I'll tell you what I think and you can tell me which box it is:
- I support termination without knowledge that the embryo exists, via the morning after pill. I believe this can't be referred to as murder because the couple lack the knowledge that the embryo exists (you can't murder nobody).
- I support the murder of an embryo as soon as the parents become aware of the pregnancy.

Sounds like the best poll option for you is pro-life with exceptions for the morning-after pill. I.e. option 2 on the poll.

The other stuff is additional issues unrelated to general elective abortions. Any of the limits on the poll might have exceptions for say medical issues for example.

 

[Diagro]

Fully pro-choice until birth​

Not our place to say nor judge anyone else's choice assuming its a single female. I'm also for fully allowing mainly other woman to make rules for them.
Also of course Fully pro-choice until birth unless contested by a male partner and no medical repercussions to the health of the mother are in play. At that point if the woman does not want the child but partner does she should be able to sign over any and all rights to the child to the father with zero legal comback at all and no child maintenance would be forced upon the mother. Common sense really should dictate all of these choices not religion or semantics and that's coming from a religious person.

Until Birth?

So you want babies to be killed prior to birth? there MUST be a limit...

I don't understand how some woman can even think of aborting (killing their child) after its started kicking them in the bladder.

(ofc... if there is a risk to mothers life)...

 

[mattx2]

I used to think anything up to 24 weeks was fine as they wouldn't be viable then anyway but after having one of my own kids born at 32 weeks and seeing her in the nicu with babies born at 24 weeks has changed my mind on it.

Would prefer if purely elective abortions kept to under 20 weeks if there's serious issues with the child or risk to mother then it should be their choice until birth

 

[Lysander]

Until Birth?

So you want babies to be killed prior to birth? there MUST be a limit...

I don't understand how some woman can even think of aborting (killing their child) after its started kicking them in the bladder.

(ofc... if there is a risk to mothers life)...

Until the baby has been dropped it's still a dependent. It's still technically parasitic. Only after it's born and out of the woman's hoohah with umbilical cord cut can it function independently.

 

[rare]

What I always found odd was the concept of having an abortion of a severely disabled baby or a baby you know will be born with other life long problems that will significantly hamper its quality of life (unable to feed one’s self, require constant care etc) is out of the question, yet apparently aborting a perfectly healthy baby right up to the point of birth is viewed as some as a legitimate right. It’s essentially murder in such circumstances.

 

[rare]

Until the baby has been dropped it's still a dependent. It's still technically parasitic. Only after it's born and out of the woman's hoohah with umbilical cord cut can it function independently.

This is nonsense, if you leave a baby to it’s own devices post birth it will die. It can’t feed itself or look after itself.

 

[dowie]

This is nonsense, if you leave a baby to it’s own devices post birth it will die. It can’t feed itself or look after itself.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree, I don't like the idea of terminating a viable baby unless there is some additional issue like medical complications for the mother etc..

I mean does the womb/vagina act as a magical philosophical gateway in that case - say you cut up/kill a premature baby within the womb that's fine but an identical premature baby that has passed through the womb can't be cut up/killed. Or perhaps some would go so far as to say infanticide should be legal.

It just seems iffy to me to have doctors trying hard to save the lives of premature babies on one hand and potentially killing premature babies of the same "age"/stage of development on the other hand.

There needs to be a limit IMO, where to set that limit is a bit of a grey area but I feel like it should be set at some cut-off pre-viability.

 

[throwaway4372]

Ended up voting for 6 weeks - not because of the heartbeat, but because that's about the time it takes to miss a period, pee on a stick, book an appointment, and debate it with your partner. At which point I think it's fine to get an opportunity to terminate, but there should be no changing your mind later.

 

[SPG]

What I find odd is its mostly men making the decision. The majority if not all of the decision has to be the Female carrying with little **** monster. Its very simple all this hubris over some twisted views and ideology.

 

[bigmike20vt]

What I find odd is its mostly men making the decision. The majority if not all of the decision has to be the Female carrying with little **** monster. Its very simple all this hubris over some twisted views and ideology.

not sure why only women should have a voice....... they may be carrying the child but the men have some input as well. I thought society was all about equality these days? Now you may well be right that this forum is skewed. That is surely just because overclockers (at a guess) happens to have more male members than female?.
I do agree that ultimately when it comes down to the individual decision then of course it is the woman who gets the final say, after all it is her body. That is an unfortunate (in this very isolated case) that ultimately the man does not have much say at the final call...... it sucks for them, they can have a child they do not want, or lose a child they desperately want and there is not a thing they can do. I cant think of a fairer position however until invitro gestation becomes a thing.

but if you think it is ok for a woman but only a woman to tell another woman that she is not allowed an abortion at any point for any reason, or other extreme a woman to tell a woman that it is ok to have an abortion as her waters break, then you are entitled to that view i suppose.

if you mean on a more broader scale in terms of the people making the laws... well I guess the public need to vote for more women into positions of power then.

 

[Lysander]

This is nonsense, if you leave a baby to it’s own devices post birth it will die. It can’t feed itself or look after itself.

That's not what I meant. It can breathe independently, that's all. That's the moment it is deemed to be "alive".

 

[bigmike20vt]

That's not what I meant. It can breathe independently, that's all. That's the moment it is deemed to be "alive".

out of curiosity how would you propose such an abortion was carried out, I mean from a practical point of view. I am no expert i would be interested to know if there are any actual medical doctors here for their view

But you have a viable baby ready to be born, and the doctor has to "abort" it...... you cant use drugs to force into labour to expell it, as all you would do would be induce the birth.

so you would be presumably askign a doctor, to actively mechancically kill a child or poison it somehow.

I can imagine you would put off any doctor from becoming an obstetrician if they were going to have that on their conscience.
What if the baby pops out still alive? when it comes to crime against a pregnant woman (again out of my comfort zone here so maybe wrong.) if a woman is hit and goes into premature labour, isnt it classed as murder if the child takes a breath on its own?

imagine i got someone pregnant, they chose at last minute to have an abortion against my will.... baby is born with issues due to the termination attempt then dies...... if hte law is as i think it is then i would be within my rights to accuse the doctor of murder wouldnt i?

note as text is hard to get context. i am not angrily ranting here, i find it genuinely interesting. i just dont see how it could possibly work however leaving it that late

 

[Ahleckz]

imagine i got someone pregnant, they chose at last minute to have an abortion against my will.... baby is born with issues due to the termination attempt then dies...... if hte law is as i think it is then i would be within my rights to accuse the doctor of murder wouldnt i?

note as text is hard to get context. i am not ranting here, i find it genuinely interesting. i just dont see how it could possibly work however leaving it that late

No, you wouldn’t. There are lots of wrongs with your claim but the easiest way to debunk it is to remind you that Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of someone. Legal abortion isn’t murder. Stop calling it murder, it isn’t.

 

[Lysander]

out of curiosity how would you propose such an abortion was carried out, I mean from a practical point of view. I am no expert i would be interested to know if there are any actual medical doctors here for their view

But you have a viable baby ready to be born, and the doctor has to "abort" it...... you cant use drugs to force into labour to expell it, as all you would do would be induce the birth.

so you would be presumably askign a doctor, to actively mechancically kill a child or poison it somehow.

I can imagine you would put off any doctor from becoming an obstetrician if they were going to have that on their conscience.
What if the baby pops out still alive? when it comes to crime against a pregnant woman (again out of my comfort zone here so maybe wrong.) if a woman is hit and goes into premature labour, isnt it classed as murder if the child takes a breath on its own?

imagine i got someone pregnant, they chose at last minute to have an abortion against my will.... baby is born with issues due to the termination attempt then dies...... if hte law is as i think it is then i would be within my rights to accuse the doctor of murder wouldnt i?

note as text is hard to get context. i am not ranting here, i find it genuinely interesting. i just dont see how it could possibly work however leaving it that late

I don't know. I'm not advocating abortion till birth. I'm in the pre-viability camp. I was saying that a baby can independently exist and breathe only after birth. Yes, it can't look after itself but it is still an independent organism, albeit a very helpless one.

 

[dowie]

What I find odd is its mostly men making the decision. The majority if not all of the decision has to be the Female carrying with little **** monster. Its very simple all this hubris over some twisted views and ideology.

Why is that odd? We don’t segregate the drafting of legislation by gender or sex in modern democracies. Only female MPs or state representatives or congress members allowed to vote on issue X only makes on issue Y.
Bad luck if your elected representative is the wrong gender/sex to vote on the issue you care about.

I mean how ridiculous would that be?

 

[bigmike20vt]

No, you wouldn’t. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of someone. Legal abortion isn’t murder. Stop calling it murder, it isn’t.

actually right now it is!....... we are talking about the suggestion that it should be ok to abort a child at any point what so ever until it is born, which is currently against the law

 

[Ahleckz]

actually right now it is!....... we are talking about the suggestion that it is ok to abort a child at any point what so ever until it is born, which is currently against the law.

How is legal abortion murder?

We are talking hypothetically about allowing abortion to be available at “any point”. If this was the case then the law would be changed to reflect that.

I believe you should be allowed a relatively late abortion, I’m not willing to put a number on it as I’m not qualified to do so, but I would want that to be enshrined in law as the 25 weeks currently is.

 

[bigmike20vt]

I don't know. I'm not advocating abortion till birth. I'm in the pre-viability camp. I was saying that a baby can independently exist and breathe only after birth. Yes, it can't look after itself but it is still an independent organism, albeit a very helpless one.

ahh ok i thought you were in agreement with dave85 and the others.