Abortion Discussion

lazygal

professore wrote: »

Don't see how that makes a difference.

On being prevented from traveling, it's legal for them to travel, so no. Personally I think the law is wrong on this though.

So what should women who are pregnant and no longer wish to be pregnant do? Should the law be changed to prevent them from travelling to kill the unborn?
Your dismissive attitude towards pregnancy and birth are telling but not surprising. I'm guessing you're not in a position where you'll have to deal with pregnancy.

professore

swampgas wrote: »

Suppose I implant a seed in your belly that will grow into a new neighbour, say over 9 months time? Would you be happy to carry this new neighbour around in your belly, or would you like the option of saying no?

If the only option was to kill the neighbour, then the answer is obvious.

swampgas

professore wrote: »

Don't see how that makes a difference.

On being prevented from traveling, it's legal for them to travel, so no. Personally I think the law is wrong on this though.

So if the law was changed to prevent travel (as you think it's wrong) would you also support strapping women to beds for the best part of 9 months and force feeding them, as that might be required to prevent them skipping out of the country?

professore

lazygal wrote: »

So what should women who are pregnant and no longer wish to be pregnant do? Should the law be changed to prevent them from travelling to kill the unborn?

Yes IMO.

swampgas

professore wrote: »

If the only option was to kill the neighbour, then the answer is obvious.

It's not a neighbour yet - it's 8 weeks in and doesn't even look human. So the obvious answer is yes, kill the proto-neighbour?

swampgas

<deleted>

lazygal

professore wrote: »

Yes IMO.

Should child benefit be paid from conception? What penalties should women who travel for abortion service face on return?

professore

swampgas wrote: »

It's not a neighbour yet - it's 8 weeks in and doesn't even look human. So the obvious answer is yes, kill the proto-neighbour?

The Nazis made the same arguments about the Jews.

professore

lazygal wrote: »

Should child benefit be paid from conception? What penalties should women who travel for abortion service face on return?

No because the unborn child doesn't cost as much as when born.

Premeditated murder.

lazygal

professore wrote: »

No because the unborn child doesn't cost as much as when born.

Premeditated murder.

I had significant dental costs after two pregnancies with severe morning sickness. Having payments of some sort from conception to defray pregnancy costs would have been helpful. Unborn children cost a lot - time off work if you're sick, time for medical appointments, the need for different clothing and underwear and as I said dental and other care.
What should happen when women return home after killing an unborn child abroad - and should the state repeal the right to travel to kill the unborn immediately as unborn lives are at stake?

professore

lazygal wrote: »

I had significant dental costs after two pregnancies with severe morning sickness. Having payments of some sort from conception to defray pregnancy costs would have been helpful. Unborn children cost a lot - time off work if you're sick, time for medical appointments, the need for different clothing and underwear and as I said dental and other care.
What should happen when women return home after killing an unborn child abroad - and should the state repeal the right to travel to kill the unborn immediately as unborn lives are at stake?

My wife has gone through 3 pregnancies so I know all about it.

The state can't repeal as it's written into the constitution and would need a referendum.

J C

swampgas wrote: »

That's a massive red herring. If she is suicidal because she is pregnant and can't get the abortion she desperately wants, I would suggest she have an abortion.

If she isn't pregnant, it's a completely different issue, so don't try that bit of misdirection thanks very much.

It's not a red-herring ... you are suggesting that an abortion will 'cure' a suicidal person.

I think you are mixing up two issues ... being pregnant and being suicidal.

If somebody has cancer and is pregnant ... the solution is to treat the cancer and maintain the pregnancy, if possible.

If somebody is suicidal and is pregnant ... the solution would also appear to be to treat the suicidality and maintain the pregnancy.

thomur

Abortion is murder full stop. No different from the ISIS nuts killing people in Syria/Iraq

J C

lazygal wrote: »

Or the woman can have the chance of a lifetime to make some childless couple happy by her selfless act of gestation.

She can have the chance of a lifetime to give the gift of life to her child by a responsible act of continuing the gestation that she started.

J C

lazygal wrote: »

What does that have to do with abortion? Someone who isn't pregnant doesn't need an abortion.

It has everything to do with abortion, if you are proposing abortion as 'treatment' for people who are pregnant and suicidal.

... so what do you propose as treatment for suicidal tendancies along with abortion, then?

... or do you believe that abortion is the only treatment available for suicidality?

Turtwig

professore wrote: »

The argument about the woman not wanting to remain pregnant or being distressed because of the pregnancy as a reason for abortion don't make sense to me. If I have a neighbour who makes my life hell I don't have the right to kill him or her.

The issue is whether you should have the choice of killing your neighbour were they surgically or biologically attached to in same way that was impacting your bodily integrity and health. Do you then have the right to kill him?

The argument about the foetus not being viable also makes no sense. A baby isn't viable on its own until it gets to school age at least ... Should we kill those too if they are difficult?

A child/foetus once separated from it's mother is a entity who poses little threat to anyone. Basically it's like killing an insect that's harmless to you simply because you can.

Whether either of the above should be ethically permissible is another matter but it helps when having these discussions to use analogies that keep within the ranges of what reflects the scenarios of pregnancies i.e a clash or rights and ethics between that of the foetus and the woman sharing the one body.

Otherwise, it's like using a geyser to discuss different waterfalls.

J C

swampgas wrote: »

You're right, that's one of the weakest analogies yet.

... that may be so ... but it shows the hypocracy of roundly condemning somebody who purchased puppies at Christmas, on impulse, only to have them put down in January, when the going got tough.
... while supporting a similar 'production and disposal' mentality when it comes to Human Children and abortion.

Tim Robbins

lazygal wrote: »

My point is no one is legally obliged to violate their bodily integrity to ensure a born child lives. Ms Y no longer has to take any interest in the baby she was forced to gestate. And no law requires her to feed it.

Well they are legally obliged. Your point is that no-one should have to legally look after their children if it means they have to use their body to look after the children.

Ok, I have to use my hands to change my kids nappy. Should I have to be legally obliged to do that?

Tim Robbins

lazygal wrote: »

Should child benefit be paid from conception? What penalties should women who travel for abortion service face on return?

That's a terrible argument. Because the state doesn't pay you benefit, you can kill your child? Say the state didn't pay child benefit until the child was two, does this mean you could kill your child while it was under 2.

You know jolly well why the state starts paying child benefit. You don't incur nappy costs when you are in the womb.

It should arguably pay benefits of some sort when the woman is pregnant but most of that money should go to make sure the pregnancy / labour are as safe as possible.

PopePalpatine

Bloody hell, this is some "Republic of Gilead" stuff.

professore

Turtwig wrote: »

The issue is whether you should have the choice of killing your neighbour were they surgically or biologically attached to in same way that was impacting your bodily integrity and health. Do you then have the right to kill him?


A child/foetus once separated from it's mother is a entity who poses little threat to anyone. Basically it's like killing an insect that's harmless to you simply because you can.

Whether either of the above should be ethically permissible is another matter but it helps when having these discussions to use analogies that keep within the ranges of what reflects the scenarios of pregnancies i.e a clash or rights and ethics between that of the foetus and the woman sharing the one body.

Otherwise, it's like using a geyser to discuss different waterfalls.

There isn't a suitable analogy to a woman carrying her unborn child inside her.

aloyisious

professore wrote: »

There isn't a suitable analogy to a woman carrying her unborn child inside her.

Is that a suitable analogy to a woman carrying a fetus inside her?

aloyisious

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well they are legally obliged.

Will you be writing to the A.G. reminding him of this, and that he should go to the high court seeking an injunction against Ms Y forcing her to care for the child born to her?

J C

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's a terrible argument. Because the state doesn't pay you benefit, you can kill your child? Say the state didn't pay child benefit until the child was two, does this mean you could kill your child while it was under 2.

You know jolly well why the state starts paying child benefit. You don't incur nappy costs when you are in the womb.

It should arguably pay benefits of some sort when the woman is pregnant but most of that money should go to make sure the pregnancy / labour are as safe as possible.

The state does pay money to pregnant women, who work outside the home, in the later stage of pregnancy ... it's called maternity benefit ... and it continues after the delivery as well.

Tim Robbins

Perhaps, you could read my previous posts where I said abortion in the case of rape is OK.

volchitsa

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Perhaps, you could read my previous posts where I said abortion in the case of rape is OK.

How does its manner of conception change its right to life, and does a child actually born of rape have similarly reduced rights in your view?

If not, why only before it's born?

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

How does its manner of conception change its right to life, and does a child actually born of rape have similarly reduced rights in your view?

If not, why only before it's born?

The manner of its conception doesn't change the child's right to life ... but it could change the mothers rights.

There is a balance always to be struck between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child she is carrying. At one extreme is the scenario where a mother's life on the line, because of an ectopic pregnancy, and the child will inevitably die ... and at the other end, a perfectly healthy mother with a perfectly healthy child deliberately conceived to be deliberately aborted.

In-between these two extremes lie all kinds of situations and permutations. Situations where pregnancy has resulted from rape certainly pushes the ethics of administering the Morning After Pill towards it's administration.
However, for both medical and ethical reasons, it certainly shouldn't become the primary contraception method for women who are (voluntarily) sexually active - and who therefore have the opportunity of using better methods of routine contraception.

volchitsa

Deliberately conceived to be deliberately aborted??

Could you explain how you imagine this sort of scenario could occur please?

Because it seems delusional to me.

Secondly, about the MAP - from what point of view is it a bad thing if it were to be used as regular contraception - bad for the woman's health, or bad as in immoral?

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

Deliberately conceived to be deliberately aborted??

Could you explain how you imagine this sort of scenario could occur please?

Because it seems delusional to me.

There are undoubtedly some women who do this ... for 'kicks' ... and all of the ethical indicators would be against abortion.
I was using it as a scenario at the other extreme of the spectrum from an ectopic pregnancy, (where all of the ethical indicators are in favour of abortion).

jill_valentine

J C wrote: »

She can have the chance of a lifetime to give the gift of life to her child by a responsible act of continuing the gestation that she started.

You don't get to tell her how to feel about what is happening to her own body, I'm afraid.