Abortion Discussion

Dan_Solo

silverharp wrote: »

given that I spent some time arguing with creationists that there was no first human ,I wouldnt be happy arguing when a foetus becomes human

But you agree that at some stage they do transition from not-human to human? Otherwise nobody is human at all!

silverharp wrote: »

medical ethics come into it and they should have an input into the process as they are the ones that have to do the job. given the experience around the world doctors are obviously comfortable of a process of up to 24ish weeks. I would wager that they might be uncomfortable delivering or aborting in the "it could go either way" window. I dont think a baby should be terminated after say 26 weeks and I dont think a baby should be delivered from 26-33ish weeks all things being equal.

But again this is dependent on medical advances and nothing inherent in the intrinsic value of the foetus/child. Should national abortion policy be linked to the number of available NICUs or earliest surviving baby in that country? If no doctor is available is a DIY abortion OK at any stage as the foetus most certainly won't survive anyway?

silverharp wrote: »

Ive given you my moral framework , which is based on the privacy of the woman which at least is reasonably consistent between pre and post birth situations and doesnt have a foetus arbitrarily change status at a magic point in time.

At least you have a reasoned and consistent preferred policy. I just don't think it's a moral one, it's based on what we can do, not what we should do. What makes the stage at which a foetus becomes a human any more arbitrary than the magic point at which the available medical technology at the time and depending on where you live allows support of the foetus outside the womb?

Brian Shanahan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This adds nothing really as you have, as other before you, continued to refuse to define who "they" are in the first place. It's meaningless.

"They" are people who, like you, are against abortions, and because they are against abortions want to force their views as a matter of law on others. They are not above, lying, demonising, boming and even murdering others to further their goals.

And you know this well, so stop with the flippy-floppy mendacious beating around the bush and misquoting of those of us who are pro-choice, it is only making your side look even worse.

Dan_Solo

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

"They" are people who, like you, are against abortions, and because they are against abortions want to force their views as a matter of law on others. They are not above, lying, demonising, boming and even murdering others to further their goals.

And you know this well, so stop with the flippy-floppy mendacious beating around the bush and misquoting of those of us who are pro-choice, it is only making your side look even worse.

I've already said I support on request foetus termination to the time of higher cortical function, which is around the UK's 24 week limit. So I'm against any other foetal terminations, therefore I'm "they" and "against abortions"? Or did you just not bother to read anything I've posted before inventing your conclusion about me? How well do you think I fit in with those abortion clinic bombers, as you claim, supporting foetus destruction at 24 weeks?
Tough luck there mate. Want to roll the reflexive vacuous generalization dice again and see how you get on?

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I've already said I support on request foetus termination to the time of higher cortical function, which is around the UK's 24 week limit. So I'm against any other foetal terminations, therefore I'm "they" and "against abortions"? Or did you just not bother to read anything I've posted before inventing your conclusion about me? How well do you think I fit in with those abortion clinic bombers, as you claim, supporting foetus destruction at 24 weeks?
Tough luck there mate. Want to roll the reflexive vacuous generalization dice again and see how you get on?

I think you'll find that is pretty much the pro-choice view. So why the foaming at the mouth stuff? Take a valium. Or three.

Dan_Solo

obplayer wrote: »

I think you'll find that is pretty much the pro-choice view. So why the foaming at the mouth stuff? Take a valium. Or three.

Wow. Thanks for telling me what my own generalization grouping is. I never would have guessed I would generally be considered pro-choice without your stunning intervention.
Funny how you have a go at me for sticking up for myself when I'm being compared to abortion clinic bombers, but have eff all to say when I'm lumped in with them in the first place.
Keep your advice, thanks all the same.

obplayer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Wow. Thanks for telling me what my own generalization grouping is. I never would have guessed I would generally be considered pro-choice without your stunning intervention.
Funny how you have a go at me for sticking up for myself when I'm being compared to abortion clinic bombers, but have eff all to say when I'm lumped in with them in the first place.
Keep your advice, thanks all the same.

4 valium.

Turtwig

MOD:

TIMEOUT FOLKS!

This thread is getting very snarky. Not what we want to see in this forum. So, please let's all have a nice warm cup of tea. A few deep breaths, exhale and give some deeper consideration to your posting.

Everyone please stop the low level goading and baiting.

Now, please shake hands and let's start over.

Well, partially, if things persists I'm afraid cards are going to be inevitable.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

I'm on a phone so not in a position to link but look at the Telegraph with a header of "abortion 24 week limit : q&a." It states it clearly enough

Thanks, though I can't imagine the Telegraph is an organ of British government, so it's hardly in a position to make a statement of policy.
Whilst the Telegraph has offered the opinion that "The limit broadly represents the point at which a foetus is said to become "viable"", it hasn't actually said that the UK (let alone the majority of countries) 'use this as a guide and back up from there' (or even offered a source for their own slightly different assertion).

So I suppose we'll have to wait til you're off your phone to give us your source...

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Not trying to go against a mod ruling, just seeking clarification. So what are we going to call them, then, anti-abortionist is a perfectly accurate description of what they are about, and their preferred term "pro-life" is an outright lie so I'm definitiely not going to dignify their position by giving credence to the lie.
I simply started using the term "anti-abort" because I was lazy the same night. So if I caused offence by this shortening then I apologise for my laziness.

You offered a very specific (and let's not forget, universal) definition of what an 'anti-abort' is:

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The anti-aborts are universally of the type which will support policies which make it harder for poor people to get good jobs, get educated, get proper access to their rights and be treated, in general, like human beings. That's one reason why they are anti-abort, because big families are a good way of keeping the poor down.

You've failed to offer an evidence whatsoever for the existence of this group of people, and are now trying to extend your description to encompass anyone who describes themselves as "Pro-life" or "Anti-abortion". That seems less like pure laziness (although I'll agree it's lazy nonetheless) and more like a deliberate attempt to baselessly smear people who have the nerve to disagree with you.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

"They" are people who, like you, are against abortions, and because they are against abortions want to force their views as a matter of law on others. They are not above, lying, demonising, boming and even murdering others to further their goals.
And you know this well, so stop with the flippy-floppy mendacious beating around the bush and misquoting of those of us who are pro-choice, it is only making your side look even worse.

So... is it not mendacious to say that those who describe themselves as pro-live are universally of the type which will support policies which make it harder for poor people to get good jobs, get educated, get proper access to their rights and be treated, in general, like human beings? Do you think it makes 'your side' look better to say that those who are pro-life are so because big families are a good way of keeping the poor down? Sounds like you're not above a bit of lying and demonising yourself in fairness......

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Thanks, though I can't imagine the Telegraph is an organ of British government, so it's hardly in a position to make a statement of policy.
Whilst the Telegraph has offered the opinion that "The limit broadly represents the point at which a foetus is said to become "viable"", it hasn't actually said that the UK (let alone the majority of countries) 'use this as a guide and back up from there' (or even offered a source for their own slightly different assertion).

We need a source for the sources! It's sources all the way down, when you want to play "pass the burden of proof".

Check out the UK parliamentary debates for any number of mentions of viability as the general basis of the legislation. Consider further the SCOTUS's deliberations on the matter. Ponder if the recurrence of similar thresholds in other jurisdictions is an entirely wild coincidence.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

a man can only have a right to stop an abortion if he's willing and able to carry the foetus to term, and only then. In any other case he should support the woman in her decision no matter what.

Based on what? If we as a society decide he ought to have as much say as a woman about how their joint issue can be treated, there's nothing to prevent us giving him the right to stop that specific abortion.
Nor do I see why he should support a woman in her decision no matter what; if he has a stake in that decision there's no reason he should be supportive if he disagrees with it?

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

We need a source for the sources! It's sources all the way down, when you want to play "pass the burden of proof".

Not really; just a source rather than another opinion would do.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Check out the UK parliamentary debates for any number of mentions of viability as the general basis of the legislation.

Is there one in particular you'd like to link that shows that viability actually is the basis of the legislation, as opposed to MPs basing their points on the notion?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Consider further the SCOTUS's deliberations on the matter. Ponder if the recurrence of similar thresholds in other jurisdictions is an entirely wild coincidence.

I rather doubt SCOTUS have much to do with the basis of UK legislation, though I can certainly see why they would deliberate on viability if it weren't specifically enshrined in their own legislation.
The occurrence of viability thresholds in other jurisdictions is exactly what I was asking Silverharp about, so I'm sure he'll come back to both of us in good time.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Is there one in particular you'd like to link that shows that viability actually is the basis of the legislation, as opposed to MPs basing their points on the notion?

As opposed to? The two are essentially synonymous. What carries the debate is a truer reflection of the "intent" of a piece of legislation that any editorialising it might choose to do about itself.

I rather doubt SCOTUS have much to do with the basis of UK legislation, though I can certainly see why they would deliberate on viability if it weren't specifically enshrined in their own legislation.

Clearly, I was speaking to the basis of it in different legislations.

So now you're telling me that the basis of the law in the states can't be viability, because viability is the point the SCOTUS judgement turned on? Very judo, I'm sure.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

As opposed to? The two are essentially synonymous. What carries the debate is a truer reflection of the "intent" of a piece of legislation that any editorialising it might choose to do about itself.

Well, as opposed to a debate on whether a change in the circumstances of viability ought to occasion a change in legislation, for instance. As opposed to anything that isn't a discussion of the specific piece of legislation which shows that the viability point is the main factor in what happens next, and the UK uses this as a guide and back up from there, really I suppose.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Clearly, I was speaking to the basis of it in different legislations.

Was there a particular piece of legislation in either jurisdiction that you were thinking was to the point? Or are we still going on on the idea that if people are discussing it, it must be there somewhere?

alaimacerc wrote: »

So now you're telling me that the basis of the law in the states can't be viability, because viability is the point the SCOTUS judgement turned on? Very judo, I'm sure.

I certainly am not; you'd have to have pointed out which SCOTUS judgement you're now referring to for me to even consider that (since you didn't refer to one in your post), and how that relates to which piece of legislation shows that the viability point is the main factor in what happens next, and the US uses this as a guide and back up from there.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Thanks, though I can't imagine the Telegraph is an organ of British government, so it's hardly in a position to make a statement of policy.
Whilst the Telegraph has offered the opinion that "The limit broadly represents the point at which a foetus is said to become "viable"", it hasn't actually said that the UK (let alone the majority of countries) 'use this as a guide and back up from there' (or even offered a source for their own slightly different assertion).

So I suppose we'll have to wait til you're off your phone to give us your source...

In this case I was correct based on received wisdom from the British Press


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/7409696.stm

Health Minister Dawn Primarolo insisted there was no evidence requiring the abortion laws to be changed.
She said: "The upper gestational limit for termination of pregnancy was set by Parliament in 1990 at 24 weeks because the scientific evidence of the time was that the threshold of viability had increased and babies were increasingly surviving at 24 weeks and above.
"That was the case in 1990 and it's certainly the case now."

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

In this case I was correct based on received wisdom from the British Press
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/7409696.stm

Well, it certainly shows that Dawn Primarolo has the same opinion as you about the UK's legislation, but, like you, she hasn't provided a source on which she's basing her opinion either?

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Well, it certainly shows that Dawn Primarolo has the same opinion as you about the UK's legislation, but, like you, she hasn't provided a source on which she's basing her opinion either?

You're a scream, you really are! Hilarious!

She is (or was at the time) one of the legislators, and what's more, she didn't realize she was going to have to annex all previous legislation to her speech so as to satisfy a random poster called Absolam, in a different country! If only she'd known she was going to have to convince the unconvinceable, I'm sure she'd have been more rigorous about citing the exact piece of legislation concerned!

(I'd put you on ignore, but I looked at this because I couldn't help wondering what on earth you could possibly find to object to a direct quote from an MP about the basis for parliamentary legislation (if they don't know, who the hell does? You? :rolleyes:

Still, despite the entertainment value from the occasional look at your posts, you're staying on ignore. Because you're never actually involved in discussion, just nitpicking. And that quickly gets tiresome.)

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

Well, it certainly shows that Dawn Primarolo has the same opinion as you about the UK's legislation, but, like you, she hasn't provided a source on which she's basing her opinion either?

Come on now, give it up! I think that reasoning is a sack of crap but there's enough there to say that was the reasoning.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

You're a scream, you really are! Hilarious!

I know. It's beside the point, but it is a gift :-)

volchitsa wrote: »

She is (or was at the time) one of the legislators, and what's more, she didn't realize she was going to have to annex all previous legislation to her speech so as to satisfy a random poster called Absolam, in a different country!

Well, she was certainly an MP. I can't say that necessarily means she always knew what she was talking about though, can you?
And whilst I think you probably mean append rather than annex, I see where you're going; but I haven't asked her to provide a source for her opinion, I asked Silverharp for a source for his. Offering someone elses similar opinion instead is just somewhat off the mark.....

volchitsa wrote: »

If only she'd known she was going to have to convince the unconvinceable, I'm sure she'd have been more rigorous about citing the exact piece of legislation concerned!

I'm sure she might, just as Silverharp ought.

volchitsa wrote: »

(I'd put you on ignore, but I looked at this because I couldn't help wondering what on earth you could possibly find to object to a direct quote from an MP about the basis for parliamentary legislation (if they don't know, who the hell does? You? :rolleyes:

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll find the time to do it when it suits you.
In them meantime, here is another direct quote from an MP about parliamentary legislation.
David Silvester:

Since the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, the nation has been beset by serious storms and floods. One recent one caused the worst flooding for 60 years. The Christmas floods were the worst for 127 years. Is this just global warming or is there something more serious at work?

As you say... (if they don't know, who the hell does? :rolleyes:

volchitsa wrote: »

Still, despite the entertainment value from the occasional look at your posts, you're staying on ignore. Because you're never actually involved in discussion, just nitpicking. And that quickly gets tiresome.)

Just a quick hint. If you put me on ignore, you can't actually see my posts at all. Including the one you just responded to.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

.

I'm not sure why you're so defiant about this. When we can save the baby has bugger all to do with when we should save the baby.

Frito

Absolam wrote: »

Well, it certainly shows that Dawn Primarolo has the same opinion as you about the UK's legislation, but, like you, she hasn't provided a source on which she's basing her opinion either?

I can't be certain as I had to do a little digging but I think it might be this.

Absolam

Frito wrote: »

I can't be certain as I had to do a little digging but I think it might be this.

I don't think so; though it would certainly relate to the debate on whether to change abortion legislation on the basis of current (at the time) potential viability, but doesn't speak to the assertion that then, and now, UK abortion legislation uses viability as a guide and back up from there. I would have thought by now Silverharp would have simply quoted the relevant piece of legislation that specifies that (the BMJ piece doesn't cite it as reference either), but apparently it is not to be......

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're so defiant about this. When we can save the baby has bugger all to do with when we should save the baby.

Oh, I just like to know that when someone prefaces a statement with something as authoritative as "I'd be correct in saying that" that they've checked to see if they are, in fact, correct in saying that. I've no doubt it's not at all relevant to your own points about when we can or should save a baby.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think so; though it would certainly relate to the debate on whether to change abortion legislation on the basis of current (at the time) potential viability, but doesn't speak to the assertion that then, and now, UK abortion legislation uses viability as a guide and back up from there. I would have thought by now Silverharp would have simply quoted the relevant piece of legislation that specifies that (the BMJ piece doesn't cite it as reference either), but apparently it is not to be......

why would the legislation itself detail the reasoning behind the legislation? it would be difficult to quote that part of the legislation if the legislation doesnt contain the reasoning behind the legislation

volchitsa

silverharp wrote: »

why would the legislation itself detail the reasoning behind the legislation? it would be difficult to quote that part of the legislation if the legislation doesnt contain the reasoning behind the legislation

I don't think legislation generally quotes the (presumed) scientific reasons behind it anyway, does it? Does anti-drink-driving law begin with discussions about the reasoning behind it?

(Obviously I could go and look, if I actually thought it mattered - but I'm not going to. It's more of a rhetorical question really! )

lazygal

In Ireland there's a pre legislative scrutiny process now where oireachtas committees will.bring in witnesses with various expertise or interest groups to discuss potential legislative changes or proposed bills. Those discussions can take place in private or public. If they're public the information supplied will usually be available.

MrPudding

silverharp wrote: »

why would the legislation itself detail the reasoning behind the legislation? it would be difficult to quote that part of the legislation if the legislation doesnt contain the reasoning behind the legislation

No. There might be something in Hansard. I will try to have a look, if I get a chance.

EDIT:

Here is an interesting excerpt from Hansard for the House of Lords. It gets interesting in paragraph 4 of Baroness Seear's remarks.:

Baroness Seear wrote:

We have argued this issue for far too long. The evidence now is that it is sensible to reduce the period to 24 weeks. The medical profession tells us quite plainly that it is desirable to recognise the fact that changes in medical practice make 24 weeks far more suitable than 28 weeks. Therefore, those of us who regretfully support the need to have legal abortion back the idea of 24 weeks. It is highly desirable that we should clear up this issue of what is legal in terms of abortion and what is the right period of time to take into consideration.

Clearly this is in the Lords so is not likely to satisfy Absolam's requirement, but it does seem to indicate that improvements in medical techniques, leading to better potential outcomes for premature babies was, at the very least, taken into account.

One more, and hopefully that will be enough... This is from Hansard for the Commons.The interesting part is:

Kenneth Clarke wrote:

The amendment maintains the position [...] that as medical science moves on, the House will reduce the limit from 24 weeks.

This seems to strongly support the idea of the limit for abortions, by choice, being linked to survivability.

MrP

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

why would the legislation itself detail the reasoning behind the legislation? it would be difficult to quote that part of the legislation if the legislation doesnt contain the reasoning behind the legislation

Well, you seem to be moving from using viability as a guide and back up from there, to the reasoning behind the legislation, which is a bit of a change. But anway, case in point, if legislation were based on viability, you'd imagine it would mention viability, wouldn't you? Otherwise, it might be read as being based on a set timeframe which might well be similar to viability, but with no intent expressed to link it with viability. If the legislation doesn't mention viability at all, it's hard to see how viability guides anything in the legislation... or back up from there.

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think legislation generally quotes the (presumed) scientific reasons behind it anyway, does it? Does anti-drink-driving law begin with discussions about the reasoning behind it?

Well, drink driving legislation does mention the level of intoxication attained before driving is prohibited; equally abortion legislation based on viability you would imagine ought to mention the level of viability to be attained before abortion is prohibited.

MrPudding wrote: »

No. There might be something in Hansard. I will try to have a look, if I get a chance. Here is an interesting excerpt from Hansard for the House of Lords. It gets interesting in paragraph 4 of Baroness Seear's remarks.: Clearly this is in the Lords so is not likely to satisfy Absolam's requirement, but it does seem to indicate that improvements in medical techniques, leading to better potential outcomes for premature babies was, at the very least, taken into account. One more, and hopefully that will be enough... This is from Hansard for the Commons.The interesting part is:This seems to strongly support the idea of the limit for abortions, by choice, being linked to survivability.

Which certainly seems to show that viability was considered when amending the legislation.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

In Ireland there's a pre legislative scrutiny process now where oireachtas committees will.bring in witnesses with various expertise or interest groups to discuss potential legislative changes or proposed bills. Those discussions can take place in private or public. If they're public the information supplied will usually be available.

I suspect Silverharp is not offering Ireland as one of the majority of countries he believes he is correct in saying use viability as a guide and back up from there though, so that may not help his case much.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Well, you seem to be moving from using viability as a guide and back up from there, to the reasoning behind the legislation, which is a bit of a change. But anway, case in point, if legislation were based on viability, you'd imagine it would mention viability, wouldn't you? Otherwise, it might be read as being based on a set timeframe which might well be similar to viability, but with no intent expressed to link it with viability. If the legislation doesn't mention viability at all, it's hard to see how viability guides anything in the legislation... or back up from there.

But I gave you the reason as stated by their minister. If it really interests you, you can look up the House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967 . I'd link it but you will probably come back with some inane comment that they are not the same individuals that implemented the 1990 act so how would the later committees know how the earlier committees reached their decisions. :pac:

MrPudding

silverharp wrote: »

But I gave you the reason as stated by their minister. If it really interests you, you can look up the House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967 . I'd link it but you will probably come back with some inane comment that they are not the same individuals that implemented the 1990 act so how would the later committees know how the earlier committees reached their decisions. :pac:

The stuff I linked to is in relation to the 1990 amendment.

MrP