Abortion.What do you think about it?

I suppose it is possible FA but they tell you all the details of all their other operations and then some. There's a deafening silence on abortion and there's millions been done. People even presume that a young lady has gone for one if she goes away for a few days.

Quote:

spendius wrote:
In England abortion is illegal after 24 weeks gestation.

I don't know how it is timed but it suggests that the fetus is not a person at 23.59.59 on one day and becomes a person 1 second later. Ain't that nice. But it does suggest, to answer the question, that the law considers the fetus a person after 24 weeks.

It doesn't do anything of the sort. Doesn't even touch on the point...or at least, it doesn't as you have stated it here.

You're being a bit pedantic there old chap. Bit defensive really. As with the first point. I thought we were ordinary people on here not legal eager beavers.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I suppose it is possible FA but they tell you all the details of all their other operations and then some. There's a deafening silence on abortion and there's millions been done. People even presume that a young lady has gone for one if she goes away for a few days.

In any case, perhaps they simply feel the information is none of your business. For you to suppose they do not share the information because they are ashamed...is claptrap.

Quote:

Quote:
spendius wrote:
In England abortion is illegal after 24 weeks gestation.

I don't know how it is timed but it suggests that the fetus is not a person at 23.59.59 on one day and becomes a person 1 second later. Ain't that nice. But it does suggest, to answer the question, that the law considers the fetus a person after 24 weeks.

It doesn't do anything of the sort. Doesn't even touch on the point...or at least, it doesn't as you have stated it here.

You're being a bit pedantic there old chap. Bit defensive really. As with the first point. I thought we were ordinary people on here not legal eager beavers.

Not "defensive" at all...and not especially pedantic.

I merely pointed out that your reasoning was poor...and, it can be argued, self serving.

I do not know the details of English law regarding abortion...but nothing you offered indicates that the legislators made any distinctions that had to do with personhood.

It may well be that they did make the distinction...but you certainly have not supplied anything that suggests they consider the fetus to be a non-person one second....and a person the next.

The decision for using 24 weeks may have been based on something completely different.

0 Replies

Well FA- the fetus comes under the protection of the law at 0.01 seconds after midnight with a cheap stopwatch. Whether that's a legal definition of a person I don't know.

It is certainly a common sense definition of a bunch of totally confused idiots.

0 Replies

And it does seriously appal me that people who have had dealings with these matters then go on to justify it in public,, and that's sick self serving, and try to persuade some young girls to get as screwed up as they are.

Listen young ladies-don't ever do it.If you already have done don't do it again.

0 Replies

Not ever.

0 Replies

Spendius...

...a pregnancy is a unique situation.

The pregnant woman...and she alone...should decide if she wants to continue the pregnancy or to terminate it.

And it should be her right to do so legally.

Neither you nor I nor anyone else should have any say in the matter.

0 Replies

Taking away all the pedantic thrusts of the argument, what Frank just said is the exact way it is.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Neither you nor I nor anyone else should have any say in the matter.

Sure, someone's religious moralizations as to what constitutes a human being, is of no consideration to the woman in question.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Neither you nor I nor anyone else should have any say in the matter.

Sure, someone else's religious moralizations as to what constitutes a human being, should be of no consideration to the pregnant woman in question.

0 Replies

Exactly Frank. No one but the pregnant woman should decide if she wants
to terminate the pregnancy or not.

spendius, why are you making claims that women have abortions past
24 weeks? That's not true, a termination is considered only if the pregnant woman is in danger, or in case of a severe fetal abnormality.

How many women do you know who use abortion as a method of birth control? None, probably. Whatever reason lead up to an abortion is
very private for every woman, and who are you to tell them what's right
or wrong?

Every abortion comes with physical ailments, the probability of longterm scaring, and huge financial setbacks. No insurance (except in emergency situations) will pay for an abortion, and considering the hospital expenses, additional cost for the physician, anesthesiologist, and nursing staff you're easily paying more than $ 500 for an abortion.

THe majority of abortions are performend on young women who probably
have to struggle to make the payments. Do you honestly think, they take
it lightly to go through such agony, if they did not consider all the options
beforehand?

It is just so amazing to me, that especially men (with exception of Frank,
Joe, Chumley and a few others) object to a woman's right to choose.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Well FA- the fetus comes under the protection of the law at 0.01 seconds after midnight with a cheap stopwatch. Whether that's a legal definition of a person I don't know.

It is certainly a common sense definition of a bunch of totally confused idiots.

You are exactly right Spendius.

Anyone who supposes that the unborn is unworthy of protection of his/her life at 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours 59 minutes 59 seconds, and then worthy of legal protection of his/her life at 24 weeks has undoubtedly used an entirely arbitrary method to 'draw a line somewhere'.

There is NO medical basis (one of the primary bases that should make any difference when deciding on a medical procedure that is life and death ) to suppose that the unborn has undergone any transformation at the stroke of 24 weeks to entitle him/her to protection he/she didn't previously deserve.

The very fact that NO supporter of abortion will even ATTEMPT to justify the establishment of such an arbitrary line is in itself very telling.

Just more semantics, more sloganeering from the pro-aborts. No defense of their position at all.

Just 'it's legal, so shut up.' or 'it's none of your business, so shut up.'

Sophisticated reasoning, that.

Wonder if they felt the same way when it was illegal? Did they just shut up? If it was illegal today, would they just shut up?

0 Replies

Frank's argument does not depend on that line of reasoning, real life. Have you read it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Anyone who supposes that the unborn is unworthy of protection of his/her life at 23 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours 59 minutes 59 seconds, and then worthy of legal protection of his/her life at 24 weeks has undoubtedly used an entirely arbitrary method to 'draw a line somewhere'.

That's just a variation on the sorites paradox, and not a very interesting one at that. Certainly, if one's position were that life begins at an arbitrary point on the continuum (e.g. at 24 weeks gestation), then that would be subject to a sorites paradox. But then the anti-abortionist solution -- to assign the beginning of life to conception -- is no less arbitrary (and no less paradoxical). On the other hand, if one's position were that the state's interest in the preservation of the fetus begins at 24 weeks, the paradox disappears. States, after all, draw arbitrary lines all the time.

real life wrote:

There is NO medical basis (one of the primary bases that should make any difference when deciding on a medical procedure that is life and death ) to suppose that the unborn has undergone any transformation at the stroke of 24 weeks to entitle him/her to protection he/she didn't previously deserve.

That only makes sense if the line drawn truly was medical. But it's not: it's legal.

real life wrote:

The very fact that NO supporter of abortion will even ATTEMPT to justify the establishment of such an arbitrary line is in itself very telling.

I have no problem whatsoever in defending such arbitrary lines. The state has long had an interest in protecting potential life, but the state's interest must be weighed against the woman's liberty interest in her own body. States, however, make those kinds of balancing decisions all the time: there's nothing unique about abortion in this respect. In this particular case, the state (i.e. the UK) has chosen to exercise its right at 24 weeks. In the US, the state has an interest beginning at viability (per the Casey decision). The line is arbitrary, but then all lines are arbitrary to some degree. The state, however, must draw lines -- it's in the line-drawing business -- and those lines are fundamentally legal in nature. Attacking a legal line because it is not a medical one, therefore, misses the point entirely.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

Exactly Frank. No one but the pregnant woman should decide if she wants
to terminate the pregnancy or not.

spendius, why are you making claims that women have abortions past
24 weeks? That's not true, a termination is considered only if the pregnant woman is in danger, or in case of a severe fetal abnormality.

How many women do you know who use abortion as a method of birth control? None, probably. Whatever reason lead up to an abortion is
very private for every woman, and who are you to tell them what's right
or wrong?

Every abortion comes with physical ailments, the probability of longterm scaring, and huge financial setbacks. No insurance (except in emergency situations) will pay for an abortion, and considering the hospital expenses, additional cost for the physician, anesthesiologist, and nursing staff you're easily paying more than $ 500 for an abortion.

THe majority of abortions are performend on young women who probably
have to struggle to make the payments. Do you honestly think, they take
it lightly to go through such agony, if they did not consider all the options
beforehand?

It is just so amazing to me, that especially men (with exception of Frank,
Joe, Chumley and a few others) object to a woman's right to choose.

...and this is where I am forced to agree with those individuals on this matter. Because fancy legal arguments notwithstanding, when it comes right down to it - if it's my sister, girlfriend or some other woman I love, I wouldn't try to impose my feelings about the matter on her. When it comes down to it, I am just glad I never have to decide about an abortion for myself - for my own body, and my own baby. The women themselves are "where to draw the line" - not at some arbitrary point decided by males. My stance on this has always been that it it just is not an easy decision - simple, but not easy. I have argued this matter from both sides. It's one of those subjects that makes me jump off of the "either this or that" bandwagon. I s one of those things on which I can't adopt the traditional "pro" or "con" position. There are others, and this one is especially tough.

0 Replies

Thank you to all who seconded my last post.

And thanks to Joe who made that last argument in a way none of the rest of us could hope to approach.

To those on the other side who seem to think that our side of this issue cannot make reasonable arguments in defense of our position: You are kidding yourselves.

0 Replies

I musta posted at the same time as Snood.

Since he and I disagree on so much...I want to take this opportunity to commend him on this last post.

It takes guts and an open mind to come to the position you outlined, Snood...and you presented the position beautifully.

0 Replies

Joe wrote-

Quote:

On the other hand, if one's position were that the state's interest in the preservation of the fetus begins at 24 weeks, the paradox disappears. States, after all, draw arbitrary lines all the time.

That is technically correct but it begs three obvious questions.

Who comprises the state.

Is it a might is right derivation?

Will the state admit that it is happy to preside over the process because it is perceived, in most cases, to not be able to look after the babies which it obviously could if it made that a priority?

There are, of course, other questions of an ethical nature which, if ignored, tacitly grant other states the right to do the same in areas it feels are in its interests.

0 Replies

CJ wrote-

Quote:

spendius, why are you making claims that women have abortions past
24 weeks? That's not true, a termination is considered only if the pregnant woman is in danger, or in case of a severe fetal abnormality.

I looked it up on Google and it said that in the US a woman can have an abortion at any time on demand. If that was wrong I am wrong.

I am not trying to tell women what to do. I am simply seeking to show them how important these things are in the hope they will insist on men treating them with more respect which is what I feel male supporters of abortion seek to avoid by playing that side of things down and getting them gratuitously into these traumatising situations.

It is too easy for men to just say abortion is okay.

So I don't object to women's right to choose. I object to them having to and, in Dylan's mighty phrase, "All for a moment's glory."

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

CJ wrote-

Quote:
spendius, why are you making claims that women have abortions past
24 weeks? That's not true, a termination is considered only if the pregnant woman is in danger, or in case of a severe fetal abnormality.

I looked it up on Google and it said that in the US a woman can have an abortion at any time on demand. If that was wrong I am wrong.

I am not trying to tell women what to do. I am simply seeking to show them how important these things are in the hope they will insist on men treating them with more respect which is what I feel male supporters of abortion seek to avoid by playing that side of things down and getting them gratuitously into these traumatising situations.

It is too easy for men to just say abortion is okay.

So I don't object to women's right to choose. I object to them having to and, in Dylan's mighty phrase, "All for a moment's glory."

Why don't you people who don't have the decency to allow other people to make decisions for themselves stop with the nonsense that those of us who want to allow that process to occur...are somehow taking advantage of women or showing a lack of respect for them.

Of all the silly, self-serving arguments your side makes on this issue...this is probably the most laughable.

0 Replies

Spendi's an unapologetic and trogloditic misogynist. It's never worth one's while to respond to the hatred he pukes up about women.

0 Replies

Abortion.What do you think about it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know