Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Cabaal

volchitsa wrote: »

I think s/he has a point in that, outside of a vote (and in the US there hasn't been a vote on that subject, nor in many countries for that matter) the only way for people to make their opinions heard is by creating or joining a group.

So if people in the US aren't prepared to do that, they presumably are happy enough with the law as it is, ie abortion as per Roe-Wade. So they can't reasonably be counted upon as being pro-life in the Irish sense of the word (which would be considered an extreme form in just about any other country).

Lets not forget that in the USA atleast its not uncommon for companys and organisations to start "consumer groups" or lobby groups, so you can't take them at face value due to this.

For example, in one state in the USA there was a group called something along the lines of "Family for Fire Safety" and it was asking for fire proofing to be introduced on materials used in the home.

At face value the group looked like it was founded by concerned familys that were perhaps touched by home fires and this was portrayed on their website,

Upon further investigations it was found the only members of the group were chemical company's...the same company's that make chemicals that coat material to make it fire proof. The same chemicals that were later found to be cancer causing.


[EDIT]
I got the name completely wrong but here is the back story
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/05/industry-body-accused-over-links-discredited-us-fire-safety-group

It wasn't even concerned family, the group claimed to represent fire professionals, burn centres, doctors, fire departments and industry leaders advocating for the highest fire safety standards. But it only represented the chemical company's.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

I think s/he has a point in that, outside of a vote (and in the US there hasn't been a vote on that subject, nor in many countries for that matter) the only way for people to make their opinions heard is by creating or joining a group.

So if people in the US aren't prepared to do that, they presumably are happy enough with the law as it is, ie abortion as per Roe-Wade. So they can't reasonably be counted upon as being pro-life in the Irish sense of the word (which would be considered an extreme form in just about any other country).

That really makes no difference to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who do have an opinion on whatever will not be in a specific group who promote that opinion. The percentage of pro-choicers who happen to be in pro-choice advocacy groups is miniscule. What makes a few people in a group have more weight than 1000 times that number of the same opinion who don't hold an AGM or organise a rally?
I just don't think anybody's opinion is more important or more valid because they shout more I guess.

Dan_Solo

robdonn wrote: »

True, but the question wasn't about abortion in general, it was about "claiming that a fertilised egg is a human person with human rights".

TBH, my point was really just that there are more than the three reasons given, not that they are exclusive to vegetarianism, and whether they count as 'many many' is up to interpretation I suppose.

I don't really know what your point was at all then giving all those caveats. Pro-life may be most commonly a religious thing yes, nobody's arguing against that. But whether either pro-choice or pro-life is inherently anything to do with religion still remains unproven IMO.

Cabaal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I just don't think anybody's opinion is more important or more valid because they shout more I guess.

I'm glad you agree with everyone here,
Everyone is entitled to have a voice on this issue, this is why we all just want a referendum on the issue

Everyone gets a single vote on the issue,

Dan_Solo

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm glad you agree with everyone here,
Everyone is entitled to have a voice on this issue, this is why we all just want a referendum on the issue

Everyone gets a single vote on the issue,

Sure, but this isn't where this conversation started. It was about whether pro-life is an "inherently" religious stance. Saying everybody is entitled to a vote doesn't mean the Guardian article's proclamation is in any way true when we have clear number that many millions of people don't fit with the absolute presented. And the number of identifiable groups on each side has pretty much nothing to do with anything either.

Cabaal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sure, but this isn't where this conversation started. It was about whether pro-life is an "inherently" religious stance. Saying everybody is entitled to a vote doesn't mean the Guardian article's proclamation is in any way true when we have clear number that many millions of people don't fit with the absolute presented. And the number of identifiable groups on each side has pretty much nothing to do with anything either.

Well it does,
So called pro-life groups are like it or not overwhelmingly religious based,

Organizations that get the most airtime against issues of choice and freedom are also overwhelmingly religious as well. They are well funded as well from outside of the Irish state (Lolek Ltd + Youthdefense).

These well funded religious groups along with the church's control (and yes it does have some control) influence the Irish state so that this important topic is delayed going to a vote over and over, they intentionally ensure its a can kicked down the road.

The fact of the matter is that the topic should simply be put to a vote for the Irish people to decide on because right now there are people in their 40's that previously didn't have the ability to ever vote on this issue,

The current setup is outdated and does not represent the will of the Irish people anymore.

If as you claim again and again that abortion is murder then you have nothing to worry about if this issue is put to a vote, because surely you the no side that want no choice will win....right?

Dan_Solo

Cabaal wrote: »

So called pro-life groups are like it or not overwhelmingly religious based,

Never disputed. But I don't see why that's such a big deal. I don't disagree with them on abortion because they are religious. I disagree with them because I don't believe in ensoulment or personhood from conception. Should I similarly ignore the pro-choice arguments from atheists "because they are atheists"?

Cabaal wrote: »

If as you claim again and again that abortion is murder then you have nothing to worry about if this issue is put to a vote, because surely you the no side that want no choice will win....right?

I have never claimed (all) abortions are murder. And again, we are talking termination of the foetus here right? Not just termination of pregnancy. People get up in arms if somebody not viewed as 100% onside uses these terms interchangeably you know, but I'm pretty sure they'll let it slide for you.
I think it's murder beyond the age where I believe the foetus to have attained personhood, i.e. higher brain function.
Care to quote me saying otherwise? (you won't so save yourself the effort).

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That really makes no difference to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who do have an opinion on whatever will not be in a specific group who promote that opinion. The percentage of pro-choicers who happen to be in pro-choice advocacy groups is miniscule. What makes a few people in a group have more weight than 1000 times that number of the same opinion who don't hold an AGM or organise a rally?
I just don't think anybody's opinion is more important or more valid because they shout more I guess.

The problem is that some people's opinions are (or should be) more valid - the families directly involved in a decision about whether or not they need to terminate a particular pregnancy.

No-one else, apart from the medical team, should be involved in taking this decision for them. The problem in Ireland is people thinking they are entitled to judge other peopel's provate lives. Oh, except when you've got the money to travel, then you're entitled, in Irish law, to "kill" all the "babies" you want and no-one gives a hoot.

Money gets you legal privacy here. Strange, when you think about it. It's not very democratic, for a republic.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Never disputed. But I don't see why that's such a big deal. I don't disagree with them on abortion because they are religious. I disagree with them because I don't believe in ensoulment or personhood from conception. Should I similarly ignore the pro-choice arguments from atheists "because they are atheists"?I have never claimed (all) abortions are murder. And again, we are talking termination of the foetus here right? Not just termination of pregnancy. People get up in arms if somebody not viewed as 100% onside uses these terms interchangeably you know, but I'm pretty sure they'll let it slide for you.
I think it's murder beyond the age where I believe the foetus to have attained personhood, i.e. higher brain function.
Care to quote me saying otherwise? (you won't so save yourself the effort).

So about 20 weeks then? Is that your view?

(Only it's not as easy as you seem to think to remember what every single poster has declared as their own personal view on the matter. And some are also extremely reluctant to do so anyway. So one does find oneself guessing - possibly wrongly.)

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

So about 20 weeks then? Is that your view?

(Only it's not as easy as you seem to think to remember what every single poster has declared as their own personal view on the matter. And some are also extremely reluctant to do so anyway. So one does find oneself guessing - possibly wrongly.)

Well Cabaal is convinced I have said "abortion is murder" "again and again". That doesn't sound like much of an accident so I'd like to know where he's getting this conclusion from other than "you don't agree with me 100% therefore you bomb abortion clinics" which I've had here before.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem is that some people's opinions are (or should be) more valid - the families directly involved in a decision about whether or not they need to terminate a particular pregnancy.

No-one else, apart from the medical team, should be involved in taking this decision for them. The problem in Ireland is people thinking they are entitled to judge other peopel's provate lives. Oh, except when you've got the money to travel, then you're entitled, in Irish law, to "kill" all the "babies" you want and no-one gives a hoot.

Money gets you legal privacy here. Strange, when you think about it. It's not very democratic, for a republic.

Well to be fair, if you killed your 1 day old baby you couldn't claim it was a private matter and nobody's business. It's down to the definition of whether that thing is a person or not, which is what most of this discussion is about. Once we have decided that the foetus (at whatever age) is not a person then, yes, it is a private matter.
I don't think we ever finished analysing the "right to travel" here due to the thread split, but the last point I had made on that is that the amendment doesn't actually say you'd be exempt from prosecution when you return from an abortion, just that you are not hindered from travel for whatever reason.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well to be fair, if you killed your 1 day old baby you couldn't claim it was a private matter and nobody's business. It's down to the definition of whether that thing is a person or not, which is what most of this discussion is about. Once we have decided that the foetus (at whatever age) is not a person then, yes, it is a private matter.
I don't think we ever finished analysing the "right to travel" here due to the thread split, but the last point I had made on that is that the amendment doesn't actually say you'd be exempt from prosecution when you return from an abortion, just that you are not hindered from travel for whatever reason.

Well this is the thing - you can't legally travel specifically in order to kill a one-day old baby either, can you? And that's just one example of the sort of exemption that leads one to believe that even "pro-life" posters don't really think abortion is murder.

You didn't say what developmental stage you consider that the higher brain function you require occurs at.

And also, since we're teasing these details out, what do you think would be the right level of punishment for a woman who "murders" her fetus past this point? As for any other pre-planned deliberate murder? Or less? If so, why?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Well this is the thing - you can't legally travel specifically in order to kill a one-day old baby either, can you? And that's just one example of the sort of exemption that leads one to believe that even "pro-life" posters don't really think abortion is murder.

You didn't say what developmental stage you consider that the higher brain function you require occurs at.

And also, since we're teasing these details out, what do you think would be the right level of punishment for a woman who "murders" her fetus past this point? As for any other pre-planned deliberate murder? Or less? If so, why?

The foetal brain appears to "work" like a human at 22-24 weeks.
I don't see any specific difference between "inside human" and "outside human", no, and I don't subscribe to this degrees of humanity idea, so I don't see why the charge should be different.
In return, do you believe a foetus one day from term should be terminated electively?

lazygal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

In return, do you believe a foetus one day from term should be terminated electively?

At that stage the options for delivering a live or dead foetus are c section or vaginal delivery. I don't see why a foetus would need to be killed before delivery one day before term. My first child was delivered a week before term, alive, via elective c section. Termination of pregnancy, as Ms Y found out, does not mean killing a foetus is every case.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The foetal brain appears to "work" like a human at 22-24 weeks.
I don't see any specific difference between "inside human" and "outside human", no, and I don't subscribe to this degrees of humanity idea, so I don't see why the charge should be different.
In return, do you believe a foetus one day from term should be terminated electively?

No, I don't. But ending a pregnancy a day before term just means a slightly early birth. I had one pregnancy ended nearly ten days before term so my husband could be present at the birth - was that attempted murder? (The baby was fine and is now a healthy, gorgeous 19 year old girl, though I suffered a bad tear, which in hindsight may have been evidence that she wasn't entirely ready to come out...)

But I think that a fetus is only entitled to remain inside its mother with her consent, so if a non viable fetus is removed because she decides to end the pregnancy (and let's keep a grip here - this doesn't suddenly happen late in pregnancy for frivolous reasons) then that is not murder. Whereas you're saying if this happens after 22 weeks the woman should be tried for murder - aren't you?

What about a woman whose health was being severely damaged by the fetus - would that be a manslaughter charge? Or self defence?

Dan_Solo

lazygal wrote: »

At that stage the options for delivering a live or dead foetus are c section or vaginal delivery. I don't see why a foetus would need to be killed before delivery one day before term. My first child was delivered a week before term, alive, via elective c section. Termination of pregnancy, as Ms Y found out, does not mean killing a foetus is every case.

volchitsa wrote: »

No, I don't. But ending a pregnancy a day before term just means a slightly early birth. I had one pregnancy ended nearly ten days before term so my husband could be present at the birth - was that attempted murder? (The baby was fine and is now a healthy, gorgeous 19 year old girl, though I suffered a bad tear, which in hindsight may have been evidence that she wasn't entirely ready to come out...)

But I think that a fetus is only entitled to remain inside its mother with her consent, so if a non viable fetus is removed because she decides to end the pregnancy (and let's keep a grip here - this doesn't suddenly happen late in pregnancy for frivolous reasons) then that is not murder. Whereas you're saying if this happens after 22 weeks the woman should be tried for murder - aren't you?

These are both deliberately skipping the question. Maybe 1 person in 1,000,000,000 would want to terminate their foetus the day before it was due to be born, but does that mean we ignore the possibility? What about a week before? A month then? And sure, it could be delivered perfectly healthy.
But if you want any time elective foetus termination then you have to expressly allow it. Not say it's unlikely or the baby could still have been delivered healthy.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

What about a woman whose health was being severely damaged by the fetus - would that be a manslaughter charge? Or self defence?

Of course it is self-defence. Even children can't be held legally responsible for crimes so I don't know why you need to make the hyperbolic suggestion that it'd be a manslaughter charge. Get a grip.

lazygal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

These are both deliberately skipping the question. Maybe 1 person in 1,000,000,000 would want to terminate their foetus the day before it was due to be born, but does that mean we ignore the possibility? What about a week before? A month then? And sure, it could be delivered perfectly healthy.
But if you want any time elective foetus termination then you have to expressly allow it. Not say it's unlikely or the baby could still have been delivered healthy.

Is termination of a pregnancy always killing a child? Or can termination involve delivery of a live baby? Do you think doctors would kill a viable foetus rather than deliver it alive to terminate a pregnancy?

Dan_Solo

lazygal wrote: »

Is termination of a pregnancy always killing a child? Or can termination involve delivery of a live baby? Do you think doctors would kill a viable foetus rather than deliver it alive to terminate a pregnancy?

Still avoiding the question. You know full well I'm talking about termination of the foetus (the clue is in the bit where I said "terminate the foetus"). Why are you deliberately trying to divert the conversation to termination of the pregnancy without the destruction of the foetus?

lazygal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Still avoiding the question. You know full well I'm talking about termination of the foetus (the clue is in the bit where I said "terminate the foetus"). Why are you deliberately trying to divert the conversation to termination of the pregnancy without the destruction of the foetus?

Because that's what happens in Ireland. A foetus is delivered live when possible. Miss Y could tell you about that. Why the focus on later term abortion? Does it get progressively worse to terminate a pregnancy as gestation proceeds?

Dan_Solo

lazygal wrote: »

Because that's what happens in Ireland. A foetus is delivered live when possible. Miss Y could tell you about that. Why the focus on later term abortion? Does it get progressively worse to terminate a pregnancy as gestation proceeds?

Ah right. So whenever anybody is asked what their position is on abortion, the correct answer is to simply state the Irish legal position on abortion. Got it now.
I'm not "focusing" on anything, but you apparently think no rules at all are required for at what term elective termination of the foetus should be permitted.
Well, either that or you just don't want to tell us.

lazygal

I favour the Canadian model of no legislation at all on abortion. It is a medical, not a legal or moral or philosophical, matter between a girl or woman and her doctor. No one should have the right to force anyone to maintain a pregnancy against a woman or girl's wishes. I don't care why someone wants an abortion, I want them to be able to access it safely and legally.

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You know full well I'm talking about termination of the foetus...

Yes. You're talking about termination of the foetus. You.

The rest of us are talking about the right of a woman to decide whether or not to be pregnant, which is the fundamental right at question here.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. You're talking about termination of the foetus. You.

The rest of us are talking about the right of a woman to decide whether or not to be pregnant, which is the fundamental right at question here.

So you refuse to answer also. Grand. Join the club.

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you refuse to answer also. Grand. Join the club.

If the membership criterion is "refusing to be drawn down rhetorical rabbit holes", I'm already there.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the membership criterion is "refusing to be drawn down rhetorical rabbit holes", I'm already there.

If you think termination of the foetus isn't a valid topic for debate in a thread about abortion then we've gone though the looking glass alright.

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If you think termination of the foetus isn't a valid topic for debate in a thread about abortion then we've gone though the looking glass alright.

It's a valid topic, but it's only the valid topic if the goal is to divert attention from the key topic, which is a woman's right to bodily integrity.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a valid topic, but it's only the valid topic if the goal is to divert attention from the key topic, which is a woman's right to bodily integrity.

Which is in itself only a valid excuse to refuse to answer the question if you think bodily integrity is the only consideration that is pertinent to the discussion. Which is grand and dandy but not everybody agrees, as evidenced by almost every last country on earth having some restriction on abortion or pregnancy or the foetus.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I think s/he has a point in that, outside of a vote (and in the US there hasn't been a vote on that subject, nor in many countries for that matter) the only way for people to make their opinions heard is by creating or joining a group.
So if people in the US aren't prepared to do that, they presumably are happy enough with the law as it is, ie abortion as per Roe-Wade. So they can't reasonably be counted upon as being pro-life in the Irish sense of the word (which would be considered an extreme form in just about any other country).

That seems at odds with the evidence from the Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics statistics to be fair; 22% of nonreligious unaffiliated Americans describe themselves as "pro-life on abortion". That's 22% of 22.8% of 318.9 million people; about 1.6 million people. There's no evidence presented so far that even a tenth of that number are part of any secular pro-life organisation in the US, so I don't think the argument holds any water to be honest.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem is that some people's opinions are (or should be) more valid - the families directly involved in a decision about whether or not they need to terminate a particular pregnancy.

Why should they be more valid? If anything, shouldn't they be less valid as they have a personal bias which could interfere with their choice over whether or not to terminate someone else's particular life?
I find it difficult to see why whether or not we allow someones life to be ended, and in what circumstances, should not be a decision for our society as a whole.

Seeking to restrict that choice to a particular group smacks of trying to influence the pool in favour of your personally desired outcome to be honest.

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. You're talking about termination of the foetus. You.
The rest of us are talking about the right of a woman to decide whether or not to be pregnant, which is the fundamental right at question here.

Well, no, quite a few of us are talking about the right of a person to live. Which is actually the fundamental right at question here; it's the right that exists in Ireland which some posters would like to remove in favour of creating a right of a woman to decide whether or not to be pregnant.

kaftan

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a valid topic, but it's only the valid topic if the goal is to divert attention from the key topic, which is a woman's right to bodily integrity.

Are there any limitations on the right to bodily integrity? If a foetus is around the viability stage of development, say 22 weeks for argument, does the right to bodily integrity supercede that of the state to confer rights on a defenseless developing human being who has passed the stage of viability? It's a valid question by those who are morally opposed to abortion. As an atheist I do not find the bodily integrity argument that persuasive, however I support a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy before viability and potential self awareness is established. The latter is a tough call so in legal terms I would err on the side of caution, say 16 weeks.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Still avoiding the question. You know full well I'm talking about termination of the foetus (the clue is in the bit where I said "terminate the foetus"). Why are you deliberately trying to divert the conversation to termination of the pregnancy without the destruction of the foetus?

Because you can't terminate a fetus, you kill it. The words "abort" and "terminate" refer to procedures, not to people. The alert for a plane that has to suddenly terminate a commenced landing is exactly that "Abort, abort" - they don't intend to kill the passengers, do they?

You are using a word that appplies to the pregnancy and insisting that it applies to the fetus, but it doesnt, not unless you consider a fetus as a procedure and not a person. Which would be a strong pro-choice position, surely?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Because you can't terminate a fetus, you kill it. The words "abort" and "terminate" refer to procedures, not to people. The alert for a plane that has to suddenly terminate a commenced landing is exactly that "Abort, abort" - they don't intend to kill the passengers, do they?
You are using a word that appplies to the pregnancy and insisting that it applies to the fetus, but it doesnt, not unless you consider a fetus as a procedure and not a person. Which would be a strong pro-choice position, surely?

You could certainly terminate the life of a foetus though. You can abort the existence of a foetus. I think it's fair to say that whilst both Dan_Solo and oscarBravo are happy to use a grammatically poor term, their intended meaning probably isn't terribly obscured give their context? Had they stuck with simply 'termination' as some posters do, there might well be room for misinterpretation. Indeed, some (pro-choice) posters feel that to use the word termination and not cause the death of the foetus is 'sneaky'.
But termination of the foetus can't really be taken to mean the termination of anything other than the (life of the) foetus, even if you're deliberately trying to misunderstand, surely?

Shrap

kaftan wrote: »

Are there any limitations on the right to bodily integrity? ....................The latter is a tough call so in legal terms I would err on the side of caution, say 16 weeks.

I am interested in how you support a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy before viability and potential self awareness is established, but not a woman's choice to be able to take a priority based decision on whether she and any existing family could go through with a pregnancy resulting in a baby with a severe disability, for example, which as you know only becomes clear at around 20 weeks.

Do you think there are many women who turn around after 16 weeks of a pregnancy and just decide it's not for them? (Rhetorical question really, not an invite for the usual suspects to come up with a "woman who's cat could no longer sit comfortably on her lap so she had an abortion at 16 weeks" bullsh1t story...). I'm getting the impression that you think the bodily integrity argument is supported by women who actually want abortions. Nobody wants an abortion. Plenty of women need them though and that's what the bodily integrity argument is about. Nobody can decide for that woman because they're not walking in her shoes.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Because you can't terminate a fetus, you kill it. The words "abort" and "terminate" refer to procedures, not to people. The alert for a plane that has to suddenly terminate a commenced landing is exactly that "Abort, abort" - they don't intend to kill the passengers, do they?

You are using a word that appplies to the pregnancy and insisting that it applies to the fetus, but it doesnt, not unless you consider a fetus as a procedure and not a person. Which would be a strong pro-choice position, surely?

Yet another lame attempt at avoiding the question, which you are now falsely and belatedly claiming is confusing for you.
Have you ever seen The Terminator? It about this robot that aborts people. And a quick Google of "terminate foetus" shows that the phrase is in wide usage and confuses nobody else.
Want to try another angle?

Shrap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yet another lame attempt at avoiding the question, which you are now falsely and belatedly claiming is confusing for you.
Have you ever seen The Terminator? It about this robot that aborts people. And a quick Google of "terminate foetus" shows that the phrase is in wide usage and confuses nobody else.
Want to try another angle?

Why on earth are you all arguing this point? This ongoing pedantry is what makes the thread a complete waste of time and an exercise in navel gazing these days. Used to be a good discussion thread, now it's a feckin car crash.

The foetus gets killed during an abortion/termination. Anyone got any questions on that? Bloody hope not. It's a pretty straight forward statement.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. You're talking about termination of the foetus. You.

The rest of us are talking about the right of a woman to decide whether or not to be pregnant, which is the fundamental right at question here.

Ah yes, this is the guy who now claims the phrase "terminate the foetus" cannot possibly exist and has him too bamboozled to answer any question about it. Odd that he had no problem understanding it, and saying it was irrelevant, just a few hours ago, but there you go.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Nobody wants an abortion. Plenty of women need them though and that's what the bodily integrity argument is about. Nobody can decide for that woman because they're not walking in her shoes.

I don't think that's necessarily true though; there may be a point where you decide a 'want' is sufficiently compelling to be considered a 'need', but I thinks that may be arbitrary?
A woman may want an abortion so she can have the freedom to go to college next year; some might consider that a 'need', some might not.
A woman may want an abortion so she can look good in a bikini on holidays in four months time; maybe less would consider that a need, but some would.
My mother (and probably a buddha somewhere along the way) used to say 'You're not going to die without it, so you don't need it', which might be the most extreme end of defining need; certainly no one could deny that a woman dying because her pregnancy is killing her needs an abortion (though some might argue that needing it doesn't mean she should have it).
So 'need' probably falls somewhere in between, depending on your point of view.
And we can decide for a woman; we're capable of empathising both with her and her yet to be born child. Part of the point of living in a society is that we make collective decisions about how things should be done. Life and death decisions are proverbially important decisions, so it seems to me entirely appropriate that they reside with society as a whole.

Shrap wrote: »

The foetus gets killed during an abortion/termination. Anyone got any questions on that? Bloody hope not. It's a pretty straight forward statement.

You'd imagine, but apparently when a foetus doesn't get killed in the course of a termination some posters feel that's not playing by the rules. That would be a termination of pregnancy, for the purposes of avoiding misunderstandings.

Shrap

Absolam, this is a bit off topic but I note that you have thanked my comment on pedantry and then followed up with a reply, that I reckon is to me but as I don't engage in pedantry any longer (and I'm imagining that you have continued to belabor the point), I won't be adding to my very simple statement above.

Correct me someone else please if I'm wrong on Absolam's comment.......

Dan_Solo

Shrap wrote: »

Why on earth are you all arguing this point?

I'm arguing it because he's refusing to admit he understands a commonly used phrase that he has already admitted understanding. It's a fairly transparent attempt at evasion. It'd be more dignified to just say "I don't want to answer" at this stage.
Anyway, you're actually wrong in that the foetus isn't necessarily killed during an abortion of the pregnancy, even though in common usage just about everywhere outside a medical dictionary this is the commonly accepted meaning. However it most certainly is in the termination of the foetus, which is exactly what I said which it is now being claimed is an incomprehensible phrase to evade the question.

Dan_Solo

Shrap wrote: »

Absolam, this is a bit off topic but I note that you have thanked my comment on pedantry and then followed up with a reply, that I reckon is to me but as I don't engage in pedantry any longer (and I'm imagining that you have continued to belabor the point), I won't be adding to my very simple statement above.

Correct me someone else please if I'm wrong on Absolam's comment.......

It isn't pedantry exactly because the phrases you are using are ambiguous. Depending on whether people think you are "onside" in this thread, people will variously try to pull you up on abortion of pregnancy, termination of foetus etc even when they know well what everybody means. I think the whole point is to shut down any debate at all about the foetus. You're only allowed talk about the pregnancy you see, which makes the terminate the foetus (OK "kill the foetus" for those who refuse to understand that) one minute before delivery question easy to evade.

Dan_Solo

Shrap wrote: »

Do you think there are many women who turn around after 16 weeks of a pregnancy and just decide it's not for them?

Why does it matter whether it's "many" or not? We don't need legislation to cover things that won't happen very often, is that your point?

Shrap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why does it matter whether it's "many" or not? We don't need legislation to cover things that won't happen very often, is that your point?

No, that's not my point. I think we should have legislation to determine criteria under which abortion could be carried out after a certain stage of development.

My point was that you and others talk about late term abortions as if they are generally on a whim, whereas the opposite is quite clearly the case and they are almost all due to serious health reasons. You've been shown that before in statistical terms.

Dan_Solo

Shrap wrote: »

No, that's not my point. I think we should have legislation to determine criteria under which abortion could be carried out after a certain stage of development.

My point was that you and others talk about late term abortions as if they are generally on a whim, whereas the opposite is quite clearly the case and they are almost all due to serious health reasons. You've been shown that before in statistical terms.

Well that's because I agree with termination of the foetus for serious health reasons. Or indeed entirely electively before the foetus reaches the stage where I consider it to be a human.
All I'm trying to do (and failing miserably, yes) is to get anybody to answer the question as to whether killing the foetus one minute before it's due to be delivered is morally acceptable to them.
If it is, then what's so fundamentally different about killing it after it's delivered?
If it isn't, then at what stage of development did it actually become unacceptable to electively kill the foetus?

Dan_Solo

Shrap wrote: »

The foetus gets killed during an abortion/termination. Anyone got any questions on that? Bloody hope not. It's a pretty straight forward statement.

volchitsa, could you explain please why you are thanking this post when it says pretty much the exact opposite of what you said here?

volchitsa wrote:

Because you can't terminate a fetus, you kill it.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

volchitsa, could you explain please why you are thanking this post when it says pretty much the exact opposite of what you said here?

No it doesn't, it says the same thing.

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

...at what stage of development did it actually become unacceptable to electively kill the foetus?

This is the rhetorical rabbit hole I'm talking about. You doggedly insist on framing the debate solely in terms of "killing the foetus", and badger people for whom that's not what the debate is about.

It's a deeply dishonest debating tactic. You can keep shouting about how annoying it is that people won't join you in your debating chamber, but a pro-choice philosophy isn't predicated on a desire to kill foetuses.

Women don't have abortions to kill foetuses. They have abortions to end pregnancies.

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well that's because I agree with termination of the foetus for serious health reasons. Or indeed entirely electively before the foetus reaches the stage where I consider it to be a human.
All I'm trying to do (and failing miserably, yes) is to get anybody to answer the question as to whether killing the foetus one minute before it's due to be delivered is morally acceptable to them.

I'll answer that. No. In fact I don't imagine anyone would. Unless there's some medical reason why that would save the mother's life that I'm unaware of.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If it is, then what's so fundamentally different about killing it after it's delivered?
If it isn't, then at what stage of development did it actually become unacceptable to electively kill the foetus?

Assuming both mother and foetus are healthy and in no danger?

At the point when the foetus become viable outside the womb. I feel like this has been said a few times.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well that's because I agree with termination of the foetus for serious health reasons. Or indeed entirely electively before the foetus reaches the stage where I consider it to be a human.
All I'm trying to do (and failing miserably, yes) is to get anybody to answer the question as to whether killing the foetus one minute before it's due to be delivered is morally acceptable to them.
If it is, then what's so fundamentally different about killing it after it's delivered?
If it isn't, then at what stage of development did it actually become unacceptable to electively kill the foetus?

I don't understand why you claim it hasn't been answered. I can only assume it's because you haven't got the answer you want. That's a different thing though.

No, it wouldn't normally be acceptable to kill the fetus one minute before it was delivered (I'd make an exception for certain cases such as FFA where birth would lead to a more painful death, for example a fetus with abnormal lung development who is going to suffocate once out of the womb). Which doesn't mean I'd try to list them all using legislation, in fact it's because of the risk of these sorts of medical complications that convinces me that this should not be a legal decision but a medical one.

However, ending a pregnancy one minute before delivery doesn't in fact lead to the death of the fetus, so your question, as you insist on repeating it, doesn't actually make sense in the first place.