8th Amendment

No Voter And Proud

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

It's nothing to do with control. Why is the notion of allowing a woman to end the life of an unborn child - HER own unborn child - not repulsive to you people?

Because it's not a whimsical decision, and I trust that if someone has come to the conclusion that an abortion is the best course of action for them, that they've considered the position, using a lot more factors than I could conceivably investigate on their behalf in order to come to the conclusion.

In my opinion that person is better placed than you or I to decide their best course of action in the vast majority of cases.

Penny Tration

No voter, do you feel that talking therapy ALONE is enough to 'fix' the trauma caused by rape?

That is the ONLY thing a pregnant rape victim can have. The medications commonly used for trauma/anxiety/depression damage the foetus.

So, you feel a rape victim should just get on with it, with no recommended treatment plan (treatment plans for rape victims include medication for 6-9 months as a starting point)? Only therapy?

No Voter And Proud

Kev W wrote: »

Women deciding how to deal with their own pregnancies doesn't cost you anything because it shouldn't happen?

What are you saying here?

No, I'm saying it should cost infinite amounts. It should not be allowed happen.

volchitsa wrote: »

Right, so you'd force her to keep it as well? I admit, I hadn't actually thought your extremism went that far!

What if she told you to take a running jump, that she wasn't going to do that? What then? Lock her up? I mean seriously, this is crazy Afghanistan Taliban-type stuff.

Can you really not see that, or have you been locked for so long yourself into a mindset that it's now just too painful for you to admit is actually evil?

There would be no forcing involved. Luckily my wife and I share the same belief system. Indeed we met at a church organised dance, and it's kind of fitting because our whole belief system and life structure has grown together with our combined faith.

I would not have spent my life married to a woman who would even countenance the idea of ending the life (or potential life) of anything, let alone our unborn child (regardless of who the biological "father" was, as I said earlier it would still be our child, since she was the mother)

No Voter And Proud

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

No voter, do you feel that talking therapy ALONE is enough to 'fix' the trauma caused by rape?

That is the ONLY thing a pregnant rape victim can have. The medications commonly used for trauma/anxiety/depression damage the foetus.

So, you feel a rape victim should just get on with it, with no recommended treatment plan (treatment plans for rape victims include medication for 6-9 months as a starting point)? Only therapy?

I think that whatever a psychotherapist would reccomend for the best of both parties involved should be done. Balancing the need of the mother for therapy (medical or counselling or whatever) versus the need of the child to exist.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

There would be no forcing involved. Luckily my wife and I share the same belief system.

But there would be forcing involved if the woman in question did not share your belief system. Are you OK with force in such a situation?

No Voter And Proud

Kev W wrote: »

But there would be forcing involved if the woman in question did not share your belief system. Are you OK with force in such a situation?

If it is done to prevent the death of a potential child then yes of course I am.
The same as our legal system is. As proven by the miss Y case.

traprunner

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No, I'm saying it should cost infinite amounts. It should not be allowed happen.



There would be no forcing involved. Luckily my wife and I share the same belief system. Indeed we met at a church organised dance, and it's kind of fitting because our whole belief system and life structure has grown together with our combined faith.

I would not have spent my life married to a woman who would even countenance the idea of ending the life (or potential life) of anything, let alone our unborn child (regardless of who the biological "father" was, as I said earlier it would still be our child, since she was the mother)

It's easy to say one thing until a situation arises. Thankfully your wife never had to face the situation mentioned before and now as you said she is no longer of child baring age.

No Voter And Proud

traprunner wrote: »

It's easy to say one thing until a situation arises. Thankfully your wife never had to face the situation mentioned before and now as you said she is no longer of child baring age.

Like I say, I make no pretense it is not an easy situation for anyone.
But we can only do what we believe is right in any situation.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

If it is done to prevent the death of a potential child then yes of course I am.
The same as our legal system is. As proven by the miss Y case.

I think that's despicable. Essentially torturing an innocent, already traumatised girl just to satisfy your own belief system is ghoulish.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Like I say, I make no pretense it is not an easy situation for anyone.
But we can only do what we believe is right in any situation.

Or what you and people like you believe is right, regardless of what "we" believe.

volchitsa

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No, I'm saying it should cost infinite amounts. It should not be allowed happen.

There would be no forcing involved. Luckily my wife and I share the same belief system. Indeed we met at a church organised dance, and it's kind of fitting because our whole belief system and life structure has grown together with our combined faith.

I would not have spent my life married to a woman who would even countenance the idea of ending the life (or potential life) of anything, let alone our unborn child (regardless of who the biological "father" was, as I said earlier it would still be our child, since she was the mother)

The question wasn't about how likely it is. It was about teasing out your views based on a hypothetical (for you, but alas real for others) case.
I'm sure you can imagine that someone to whom such a thing happens may be surprised by their own reaction to it, so that there are plenty of examples where even a woman who has always been against abortion, when she finds herself in certain situation (FFA, rape etc) realizes that she herself in that situation, absolutely needs to terminate the pregnancy.

So you still haven't answered the question : from the position you now hold (because of course you too might find that your views changed, if it actually happened, but let's stay with your views today) if your wife felt she couldnt live with that pregnancy, do you think it would be acceptable behaviour on your part to physically force her to do so?

No Voter And Proud

Kev W wrote: »

I think that's despicable. Essentially torturing an innocent, already traumatised girl just to satisfy your own belief system is ghoulish.

No, it's to stop the death of her unborn child. Which would be despicable if she were allowed to end its life.

Kev W wrote: »

Or what you and people like you believe is right, regardless of what "we" believe.

What the country's legal system believes.
And of course it is not right to end a childs life regardless of what you believe.

inocybe

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

It's not a bunch of cells.
At a few weeks (8-10) it is formed into a recognisable shape (albeit a small one) of a baby.

Having miscarried at 9 weeks, let me tell you it is absolutely unequivocally not a baby. It has potential, but at that stage to suggest it has equal rights to a woman is insulting. To have that as law is nothing less than disgusting to me as a woman and as a mother.

No Voter And Proud

volchitsa wrote: »

The question wasn't about how likely it is. It was about teasing out your views based on a hypothetical (for you, but alas real for others) case.
I'm sure you can imagine that someone to whom such a thing happens may be surprised by their own reaction to it, so that there are plenty of examples where even a woman who has always been against abortion, when she finds herself in certain situation (FFA, rape etc) realizes that she herself in that situation, absolutely needs to terminate the pregnancy.

So you still haven't answered the question : from the position you now hold (because of course you too might find that your views changed, if it actually happened, but let's stay with your views today) if your wife felt she couldnt live with that pregnancy, do you think it would be acceptable behaviour on your part to physically force her to do so?

Ok, lets disregard my statement that it wouldnt happen to me. Lets assume for an instance that it did. Lets also assume notionally that my wife decided she was now pro choice.

It would not be acceptable behavior to physically force her. I wouldnt do that. However if I thought that she was at risk of ending a child's life I woudl notify the authorities and do whatever would be in my power to stop her from doing so.

Timberrrrrrrr

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Ok, lets disregard my statement that it wouldnt happen to me. Lets assume for an instance that it did. Lets also assume notionally that my wife decided she was now pro choice.

It would not be acceptable behavior to physically force her. I wouldnt do that. However if I thought that she was at risk of ending a child's life I woudl notify the authorities and do whatever would be in my power to stop her from doing so.

Thankfully people of this mindset are a dying breed.

No Voter And Proud

inocybe wrote: »

Having miscarried at 9 weeks, let me tell you it is absolutely unequivocally not a baby. It has potential, but at that stage to suggest it has equal rights to a woman is insulting. To have that as law is nothing less than disgusting to me as a woman and as a mother.

I'm sorry to hear about your miscarriage. An experience I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. While I may disagree with your points, please don't take that as any disrespect or underappreciation of the situation.

But, if it is not a baby, why therefore is it so upsetting for parents when a miscarriage occurs?

volchitsa

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I would not have spent my life married to a woman who would even countenance the idea of ending the life (or potential life) of anything, let alone our unborn child (regardless of who the biological "father" was, as I said earlier it would still be our child, since she was the mother)

Actually just on this point - are you really telling us you knew this to be the case before you got married - ie you went through this sort of scenario before marriage - or do you mean that after you married, you would have left your wife (and children) if she'd said _ during a discussion about Miss Y, say - that she would not keep such a child?

Only it seems to me that any man who can be so certain of what his wife "would think" about any given scenario, however unlikely to pertain to them, is actually simply projecting his own views onto her.

I wonder if she's allowed to have her own views at all? :eek:

No Voter And Proud

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Thankfully people of this mindset are a dying breed.

Or are being aborted? :cool:

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

But, if it is not a baby, why therefore is it so upsetting for parents when a miscarriage occurs?

Because it was potentially a baby. When something you want has the potential to happen and that potential is lost, that's upsetting. You can't possibly not understand that.

No Voter And Proud

volchitsa wrote: »

Actually just on this point - are you really telling us you knew this to be the case before you got married - ie you went through this sort of scenario before marriage - or do you mean that after you married, you would have left your wife (and children) if she'd said, durng a discussion about Miss Y, say) that she would not keep such a child?

Only it seems to me that any man who can be so certain of what his wife "would think" about any given scenario, however unlikely to pertain to them, is actually simply projecting his own views onto her.

I wonder if she's allowed to have her own views at all? :eek:

No, of course I didnt know it when we first got together. However in my day, thoughts of aborting children were not entertained by anyone so it was pretty much a given.

Of course I wouldnt' have left my wife, in any circumstance. It's not my place to judge. We got married for better and for worse so we would work through any issues.

No Voter And Proud

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear about your miscarriage. An experience I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. While I may disagree with your points, please don't take that as any disrespect or underappreciation of the situation.

But, if it is not a baby, why therefore is it so upsetting for parents when a miscarriage occurs?

Have you never been offered something you wanted only for it subsequently no longer be available?

Or believe that you were going to get something only for it not to materialize?

No Voter And Proud

Kev W wrote: »

Because it was potentially a baby. When something you want has the potential to happen and that potential is lost, that's upsetting. You can't possibly not understand that.

But it existed for a while, and then died.
A small difference, but it explains the differing mindset between pro life and pro choice people.

volchitsa

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Ok, lets disregard my statement that it wouldnt happen to me. Lets assume for an instance that it did. Lets also assume notionally that my wife decided she was now pro choice.

It would not be acceptable behavior to physically force her. I wouldnt do that. However if I thought that she was at risk of ending a child's life I woudl notify the authorities and do whatever would be in my power to stop her from doing so.

OK, thank you for that.

So if we can dig a little deeper (I'm not trying to catch you out, I just genuinely cannot understand your views and am trying to work out exactly what the logic is), why would it not be acceptable to physically force her, since you would presumably have no such qualms if she were trying to kill one of your born children?

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

But it existed for a while, and then died.
A small difference, but it explains the differing mindset between pro life and pro choice people.

It really doesn't. Pro-choice people don't claim that fetuses don't exist.

No Voter And Proud

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you never been offered something you wanted only for it subsequently no longer be available?

Or believe that you were going to get something only for it not to materialize?

If you plant an acorn, and then it subsequently dies after the first shoots occur, is that potential or is that a young tree?

No Voter And Proud

Kev W wrote: »

It really doesn't. Pro-choice people don't claim that fetuses don't exist.

No but they claim babies are not babies

No Voter And Proud

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

If you plant an acorn, and then it subsequently dies after the first shoots occur, is that potential or is that a young tree?

What if it dies before the first shoots occur?

pmasterson95

Really people still think this is good to keep? Even after "pro-life" crap causing the death of Savita Halapenavar and that nightmare situation where a slowly decaying corpse was being treated as an incubator.


Some peoples willingness to stick out from the crowd defies logic.

No Voter And Proud

volchitsa wrote: »

OK, thank you for that.

So if we can dig a little deeper (I'm not trying to catch you out, I just genuinely cannot understand your views and am trying to work out exactly what the logic is), why would it not be acceptable to physically force her, since you would presumably have no such qualms if she were trying to kill one of your born children?

Because of a number of reasons. I don't believe that a man using physical force toward a woman is ever acceptable unless there are severe severe mitigating circumstances.

I'll qualify my statement and say the only time I would use physical force would be if she was holding an abortion tablet in her hand and was moving it toward her mouth. That would only be after attempting reasoning with her.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No but they claim babies are not babies

No, they state that fetuses are not babies. It's not really a claim so much as a medical fact.

No Voter And Proud

Deleted User wrote: »

What if it dies before the first shoots occur?

After the roots have sprouted and the shoots have grown underground but not cracked the surface? If you dig it up then, you will see it is still a tree.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Really people still think this is good to keep? Even after "pro-life" crap causing the death of Savita Halapenavar and that nightmare situation where a slowly decaying corpse was being treated as an incubator.


Some peoples willingness to stick out from the crowd defies logic.

Pro life "crap" (rather insulting) did not cause the death of Savita.
Don't know how many times I have to hear that. Poor hospital standards killed her.

inocybe

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear about your miscarriage. An experience I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. While I may disagree with your points, please don't take that as any disrespect or underappreciation of the situation.

But, if it is not a baby, why therefore is it so upsetting for parents when a miscarriage occurs?

I won't generalise. I can only tell you that for me the upset was almost entirely focussed on the loss of what could have been. What I lost was my future baby, and that was really really sad, but it was not grief like you would feel if a born child had died. In fact it was a trigger for me to become actively pro-choice, that and actually going through a full term pregnancy.
Being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against your wishes would be my choice of an experience I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

No Voter And Proud

Kev W wrote: »

No, they state that fetuses are not babies. It's not really a claim so much as a medical fact.

But, I say again, what does a fetus grow into?

pmasterson95

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

After the roots have sprouted and the shoots have grown underground but not cracked the surface? If you dig it up then, you will see it is still a tree.


Pro life "crap" (rather insulting) did not cause the death of Savita.
Don't know how many times I have to hear that. Poor hospital standards killed her.

Well thats just plain wrong the prevention of the termination led to her death.
What about the other scenario. Whats your excuse there?

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

But, I say again, what does a fetus grow into?

A baby. What's your point?

No Voter And Proud

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Well thats just plain wrong the prevention of the termination led to her death.
What about the other scenario. Whats your excuse there?

People like you sometimes make me wish i was pro choice!

volchitsa

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Because of a number of reasons. I don't believe that a man using physical force toward a woman is ever acceptable unless there are severe severe mitigating circumstances.

I'll qualify my statement and say the only time I would use physical force would be if she was holding an abortion tablet in her hand and was moving it toward her mouth. That would only be after attempting reasoning with her.

Attempted murder presumably being the most mitigating of all circumstances?

SO you knock the abortion tablet out of her hand but she scrabbles around and finds it. What then?

Thing is, either you decide that force is acceptable (because abortion is murder and because force was going to be used on Miss Y and so could be in another case in the future) or you say that force isn't acceptable against a woman who wants to abort because abortion is not the same as killing a person.

You can't really have it both ways.

No Voter And Proud

Kev W wrote: »

A baby. What's your point?

Don't kill it. That's my point.
What's yours?

No Voter And Proud

volchitsa wrote: »

Murder presumably being one?

SO you knock the abortion tablet out of her hand but she scrabbles around and finds it. What then?

Thing is, either you decide that force is acceptable (because abortion is murder and because force was going to be used on Miss Y and so could be in another case in the future) or you say that force isn't acceptable against a woman who wants to abort because abortion is not the same as killing a person.

You can't really have it both ways.

Force is acceptable to prevent worse acts (abortion/murder being one of them for instance)

As proven by the miss Y case, the state agrees with me.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Don't kill it. That's my point.
What's yours?

I don't plan on killing any babies. We're talking about fetuses though, which is different no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

pmasterson95

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

People like you sometimes make me wish i was pro choice!

Maybe you can't remember. I'll ask again. What about when this precious law meant a corpse was forcibly kept alive to act as an incubator?

No Voter And Proud

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

But, I say again, what does a fetus grow into?

Eventually, a corpse.

No Voter And Proud

Kev W wrote: »

I don't plan on killing any babies. We're talking about fetuses though, which is different no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

Killing a fetus means you've ended the life of a baby.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Maybe you can't remember. I'll ask again. What about when this precious law meant a corpse was forcibly kept alive to act as an incubator?

I can remember perfectly.
When the choice is one death or two, which is better?

No Voter And Proud

Deleted User wrote: »

Eventually, a corpse.

But a lot slower generally.

pmasterson95

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Killing a fetus means you've ended the life of a baby.



I can remember perfectly.
When the choice is one death or two, which is better?

So you see no issue with a decaying corpse acting as an incubator? That does say quite a lot about you.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Killing a fetus means you've ended the life of a baby.

No, it means you've prevented the life of a baby from beginning. You can't end something before it starts.

pmasterson95

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

But a lot slower generally.

You havent heard of stillborns in your little bubble no?

No Voter And Proud

pmasterson95 wrote: »

So you see no issue with a decaying corpse acting as an incubator? That does say quite a lot about you.

Decaying? It was on life support, hardly decaying.

Kev W wrote: »

No, it means you've prevented the life of a baby from beginning. You can't end something before it starts.

Heartbeat begins after a few weeks. If life ends when the heart stops why does it not begin when it starts?

pmasterson95 wrote: »

You havent heard of stillborns in your little bubble no?

Generally is a simple word to understand.;)

volchitsa

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Force is acceptable to prevent worse acts (abortion/murder being one of them for instance)

As proven by the miss Y case, the state agrees with me.

So you would force your wife, physically if necessary, to carry a rapist's fetus to term and pretend that it was yours? And then to bring it up, seeing as everyone else thought it was yours.

Personally I think that could lead her to a nervous breakdown, leaving you to bring up this unwanted child and your other children, but perhaps that would be ok for you.

Can you really not imagine that this might be too much of a psychological burden to expect a woman to bear against her will? That's the part I can't get over - that you don't see that choosing to do this is one thing, but a law (and/or a partner) who forces the raped woman to do it is quite another.

But you've been perfectly clear, so I suggest we agree to differ, and leave it at that.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Heartbeat begins after a few weeks. If life ends when the heart stops why does it not begin when it starts?

Because that's not how cause and effect works.