Not really necessary or likely to make any difference, this is more of a higher-order effect in that it isn't necessarily illegal but there is now an overly cautious approach from hospital bureaucrats.
Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Not really necessary or likely to make any difference, this is more of a higher-order effect in that it isn't necessarily illegal but there is now an overly cautious approach from hospital bureaucrats.
Soldato
I feel as if its self explanatory, its not my business to say a woman cannot have an abortion, however people following flawed ideologies attempt to do just that.
You are talking about when is life "life" or so forth, or a soul, or whatever, that is all irrelevant and based on flawed ideology.
An equally flawed ideology, just opposite, would be to prevent people from giving birth by forcing abortions, or sterilizing them. For example, criminals, disabled people.... anyone who does not have blue eyes and blond hair.
If you are asking for a line based on the number of weeks, that is not what i am talking about.
Why not?
Suppose a baby boy is born a week premature, the father doesn't want it and takes it away to drown it peacefully in the sea...
Is that also not your business? Or maybe that's not women's business as it just concerned the father and a son?
In the 00s the US banned partial-birth abortions, these could include viable births towards the end of the second trimester, a partial-birth abortion involves allowing part of the baby to be born and then killing it, the SC held that that ban was compatible with Roe v Wade. I suspect that plenty of people, looking at the details, especially when it involves viable foetuses/babies would consider it infanticide.
Personally, I don't see much distinction re: the womb being some magical gateway, killing an otherwise viable baby when it's in the womb or whether it's partially out of the vagina or whether it's been born all seems like infanticide to me and IMO ought to be restricted to things like medical emergencies (when needed to save the mother's life, with attempts to save the baby too as a secondary concern) or when dealing with a stillbirth, miscarriages or severe abnormalities etc.
Ethically scientists can get into trouble for say experimenting on reviving say parts of a pig's brain when there are worries that triggering some electrical activity could stimulate some degree of consciousness... yet with abortions of viable human foetuses AFAIK there isn't much thought given to using say anesthesia when killing them even though there is plenty of reason to believe they could feel pain at say 21 weeks.
Personally, I think the cut-off needs to be a bit before viability for abortion on demand, there needs to be time for someone to find out their pregnant and to make a decision, 6 weeks is way too short... but once you start getting to say 20 weeks then it's pretty much getting to an infanticide situation. Some of the EU countries with say 15, 16 week limits seem to have it right IMO.
Last edited:
Heard reports that doctors aren’t prescribing methotrexate to rheumatoid arthritis sufferers as it is a drug used to induce abortion in some circumstances.
So, we can add people with chronic illnesses to the list of people who will suffer due to this ruling.
It’s things like this that prove the ruling is absurd and should be challenged. This isn’t about giving states the right, it’s about removing agency from women based on religious nutters.
www.everydayhealth.com
I used to take methotrexate and it was a god send for helping with my symptoms. Can’t imagine the anguish of the patients if their pharmacists won’t prescribe this vital medicine. And remember, these people may not be able to work/study without this drug, yet the US aren’t helping these people are they? Don’t pretend this is about rights. It’s about control.
So, we can add people with chronic illnesses to the list of people who will suffer due to this ruling.
It’s things like this that prove the ruling is absurd and should be challenged. This isn’t about giving states the right, it’s about removing agency from women based on religious nutters.
Methotrexate Access May Be at Risk Because of Abortion Bans
The commonly prescribed drug can be used to end ectopic pregnancies. Arthritis patients, others who rely on this medication worry that abortion restrictions may delay access.
www.everydayhealth.com
I used to take methotrexate and it was a god send for helping with my symptoms. Can’t imagine the anguish of the patients if their pharmacists won’t prescribe this vital medicine. And remember, these people may not be able to work/study without this drug, yet the US aren’t helping these people are they? Don’t pretend this is about rights. It’s about control.
Man of Honour
What I was asking was what I was asking - where do you draw the line (between what should be legal and what should be illegal). I deliberately didn't add anything else and made the question as short and simple as possible so there were no possible constraints on your answer. I certainly didn't ask "for a line based on the number of weeks".
And you still didn't answer. "its (sic) self explanatory" is not an answer. "its (sic) not my business" isn't an answer either because it doesn't make sense and it isn't internally consistent unless you're an absolute anarchist. Say, for example, I steal my neighbour's car and use it to smash the window of a furniture shop in order to steal a corner sofa. None of that is your business in a direct sense. Does that mean it should be legal?
Man of Honour
I've already stated my ambivalence clearly:
Also see my edit
So you've finally been honest and admitted you support abortion on demand right up to the point of birth. Why were you so desperate to hide your position?
Personal autonomy still requires drawing a line. Humans aren't wholly autonomous for quite a long time after being born. It's a few years before they could survive without external support. So on the grounds of purely personal autonomy killing them would be OK during that period. I'm going to provisionally assume you wouldn't support that being legal.
Soldato
Well lets say some of us go to a new land and start a new country, no laws at the start. Do you not see the difference between making abortion illegal, or making property damage /theft illegal?
The business and your neighbor is affected in that situation, in turn, eventually you will be robbed etc, this is your business.
The world is not perfect, a lot of things that have no place being my business are, due to the way things work.
Your health is my business because i pay via taxes for the NHS, this justifies for example, forcefully sending anyone deemed obese to a boot camp, where they exercise until they are healthy.
To make the world better, you'd get rid of the NHS, now that removes the thing that makes it my business, you now pay for yourself, and i have no excuse to interfere with you, at least on that matter.
However a woman getting an abortion, never affects me in a way of, high taxes, or getting my windows smashed etc, it only affects me ideologically, a person should not live X way, they should live Y way, they should not believe X, they should believe Y.
That is the line.
Any ideology i might develop, saying you should live a certain way, thus is justified. This is what i mean by flawed thinking, you having an ideology does not supersede someone else's, forcing yours is the same as theirs being forced on you.
I understand i might not explain things properly, but do you get my point?
@dowie , that is why not.
Man of Honour
Yes, but I think it's not possible to have no society at all in real life on any scale larger than a commune (and probably not even then). Also, I think you're fudging a bit by arguing that things that are not your business are your business because something similar might happen to you in the future. Applying the "it's your business" ideology would result in it being your business only if it's your business.
Not really. Also, you didn't answer my question posed above.
Soldato
“Freedom” now there is an oxymoron if ever there was one.
Associate
The whole thing is ridiculous in my opinion, obviously there has been some kind of vote on it over in the US but if it were here I've heard that even for pregnancies that just hadn't gone to plan after a number of weeks where it hasn't cleared on its own and surgery would help clear that circumstance wouldn't be allowed. The world has gone mad
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 6,848
wow.....! as some people predicted this was going to end up a disaster for some people
a 10 year old rape victim unable to get a abortion is terrible...... but what I think is even more scary was the initial response from one politician was to come out and state it was all lies. A politician has no place saying that he should be fired, giving an opinion on a legal case they don't know details of just to serve political agenda is despicable.
which brings me to the next problem. if a politician is prepared to go that far to hide the absurdity of a law....... what about members of a jury or a judge.? if a politician is prepared to try to white wash such crimes then there is a chance people like that could get found not guilty so as not to have to face the reality of this ruling.
Man charged with raping Ohio girl, 10, who was denied abortion
The 10-year-old was legally barred from terminating her pregnancy in her home state.
www.bbc.co.uk
a 10 year old rape victim unable to get a abortion is terrible...... but what I think is even more scary was the initial response from one politician was to come out and state it was all lies. A politician has no place saying that he should be fired, giving an opinion on a legal case they don't know details of just to serve political agenda is despicable.
which brings me to the next problem. if a politician is prepared to go that far to hide the absurdity of a law....... what about members of a jury or a judge.? if a politician is prepared to try to white wash such crimes then there is a chance people like that could get found not guilty so as not to have to face the reality of this ruling.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,257
As for the above, it appears when it was discussed on the wonderful bastion of Fox news, they called it fake news, and said they had invented the case to push their agenda, basically ignoring having to discuss the issue at all, by claiming it was fake.
It is truly hideous what the US is now, I don't care what side you are on, the nation has come to the end of its run, we need to do all we can to move away from it, in any way, become independent as a nation or cohort with other societies and reject their views, opinions, money and interference outright.
Signing any sort of trade deal as this point, bar the nasty food it'll enable to be brought to us, or signing over our NHS to their firms will be a terrible move, no matter who is in charge over there.
Distance is what we need, and not to follow in their utterly twisted patterns of legalese
It is truly hideous what the US is now, I don't care what side you are on, the nation has come to the end of its run, we need to do all we can to move away from it, in any way, become independent as a nation or cohort with other societies and reject their views, opinions, money and interference outright.
Signing any sort of trade deal as this point, bar the nasty food it'll enable to be brought to us, or signing over our NHS to their firms will be a terrible move, no matter who is in charge over there.
Distance is what we need, and not to follow in their utterly twisted patterns of legalese
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,907
Absolutely horrendous.
Basically they are happy for a 9 year old girl who was raped to go through with a pregnancy.
Basically they are happy for a 9 year old girl who was raped to go through with a pregnancy.
Caporegime
It's what Jesus would've wanted.
I'm just fed up of hearing about Americans and their BS now, I just don't have any words left to say when it comes to this sort of thing. It's just depressing and frustrating watching them rip each others throats out over this sort of stuff, then you have a 10 year old left in that situation.
10 year old, I think the alleged rapist was an immigrant too so I guess both sides have an angle to run with now.
Though it isn't clear that she definitely couldn't get an abortion in state, it seems it might have actually been the case that one was sought out of state in part to keep it on the down low... which might have been somewhat undermined by a dr using the case for a bit of clout on social media.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,301
How many people that are pro life are actually pro this situation though? It seems total lunacy!
I dunno, it seems kinda consistent... if you genuinely believe that it's killing a baby, that abortion is murder etc.. then it would be quite logical, given that belief, to argue that though a rape is utterly tragic there shouldn't then be a murder carried out too. One innocent life has already been harmed, killing another is not the solution etc..
The argument for people holding those views, that abortion is murder, would have to be more along the lines of health, danger to the mother etc..
The argument for people holding those views, that abortion is murder, would have to be more along the lines of health, danger to the mother etc..
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,301
Imagine knowing that you are the product of a rape, or the mother being forced to raise the child of your rapist. Its the stuff of nightmares! I get not wanting to give abortions during the 3rd trimester but this is just awful.
Surely even the most ardent of pro lifers would have to concede that situations like this are an obvious exception. Crazy country.
Surely even the most ardent of pro lifers would have to concede that situations like this are an obvious exception. Crazy country.
Last edited: