Colombia legalises abortion up to 24 weeks!

"Christ, no one carries a child for 6 months then suddenly decides they don't want it."

I'd certainly hope that's true, but we live in a world where people rape and murder each other. But even if you're right and it never has and never will happen, the discussion more recently has been about whether it would be right or wrong in theory to abort a baby at 24 weeks for no particular reason.

If you've through the last few pages you'll see that there have been some posters hold the opinion that unborn at any point aren't even human, therefore in theory having no moral hang-ups, not even a tinge of sadness, about a medically unnecessary late term abortion because to them the unborn is effectively worthless.

It's not even the idea that people might support medically unnecessary late-term abortions that surprises me now, but more the lack of any kind of regard they have for the unborn that I find shocking. A lack of empathy as the dunne put earlier pretty much sums it up.

And that's your response? Nothing to say about how awful you are? No comment about the points I make?

No, instead you'll just check what team i'm on so you can decide whether to hate me or not.

Deleting your foul post does not mean we didn't see it and see you for what you are "Mary"

Most of the arguments you're attributing to me there are just in your head. Genuinely I don't know how you can say so much, and for pretty much all of it to be wrong.

One example: You said "Women who have a proven, real medical reason to end their pregnancy, you want to force them to carry it to term because you assume some people would have a late stage abortion on a whim."

No I don't. I don't believe that. I've never said that. And I think any woman should be able to get a medically necessary abortion. What you just accused me of is all just in your head. But if you read my posts you'd see I'm not even saying I'm against abortion in general. I wasn't getting into that because I was more interested in discussing peoples attitude towards the life of the unborn

Another example: You said "your other main argument seems to be that because one person made silly comments about foetus not being human you suddenly feel that that is representative of the pro-choice view."

Here's a quote from me to that person: "that's a pretty extreme opinion there you have to admit. Even the vast majority of pro-choice people draw some sort of line much much further back than that (16 weeks, sentience, pain, etc)." So that's me suddenly suggesting that they are representative of the pro-choice view is it?

I genuinely haven't the interest to go through everything that's wrong with what you wrote because I don't think you're here for a good faith discussion. You either weren't bothered or weren't able to read my posts properly so there's no point in us getting any further into this.

Did you read this at all - it specifically lists Abortion and Contraception as two different things.

I mean it's there in the language - Contraception prevents conception, Abortion cannot happen before conception.

Yeah I do hope it's true. Do you know it to be fact that it has never happened? I don't expect it has happened often if ever, but given the world we live in and the things that can happen it wouldn't surprise me if it has. That's all. No implication that it's happening widespread, or that pro-choice want it to happen or anything like that. I merely commented on something you said as if were a statement of fact. No agenda.

Also you didn't "invent the fact" that I chose to refer that "silly crank", but you have invented the reason why. You're trying to infer too much from what I've said (or what I haven't said). Why would I address other things that I'm not taking an issue with? It's was that persons post, and a couple of others that were similar, that I took issue with. I'd hazard a guess that you and I agree on 90%+ on general matters of abortion, so it's not that I'm avoiding topics but rather I just didn't come in here to talk about all that stuff.

As regards rudeness, c'mon Jack, I've hardly said anything worse than you said to me in your first post. Don't be so sensitive, you should be able to give as good as you get.

As I said, I'm happy to say I misinterpreted you and drew connections that you never intended. Your clarification certainly indicates that.

I don't accept that I'm arguing in bad faith, or that your aggressive response was warranted.

You decided for whatever reason to simply ignore all my other replies to you, choosing to attack the low hanging fruit of people you thought were acting poorly rather than discussing your own actual topic. But I shall reply to you in good faith regardless all the same.

Had you not ignored my post you would know I already dealt with some of the issues you raise in this post here.

The first issue is that of "viability". This is a misleading and moving term. As our technology increases, the period during which a fetus is "viable" is going to get longer and longer. We could even expect some future ability to keep a zygote viable to term from conception. So mediating abortion cut off terms based on viability is.... at best... unworkable.

The second issue is you have once again gone on about "pain" and simply declared they feel it. What is your evidence for this? At what stage during fetal development do YOU think this ability to experience pain comes online, and why do you think it exactly? If there is no reason to think a conscious agent is in play, how on earth could it be experiencing pain? Are you perhaps, as so many people before you, mistaking autonomic responses to pain stimulus with the actual experience of pain?

Once again though, nearly all abortions that happen by choice occur in or before week 12. Which is LONG before the term you are going on and on about. And amazingly this does not change if you look at countries with no abortion or massively strict abortion..... more liberal conditions like our own for example.... or the most liberal like for example Canada. Regardless of how liberal or restrictive the abortion conditions are.... women STILL time and time again have their abortion almost entirely in or before week 12 usually and week 16 more so.

You are performing the fallacy of the exception here. Looking at extreme exceptions that A) almost never happen and B) usually happen for damn good reasons and acting like this is some kind of issue for the abortion debate. It really isn't. Also the later the term when things do occur the more likely it is that the fetus is in fact not terminated. The pregnancy is. That is to say.... the later the term the more likely it is we terminate the pregnancy by delivering a viable baby prematurely.

Sure it is a useful and important question about where we should draw our lines in the sand, and what exceptions that can cross that line should exist. Do not mistake me as saying such a conversation should not be had. But alas that conversation is all too often used as a red herring distraction from the abortion conversation itself. Usually by people who are desperate as they (like yourself) have not presented a single more general anti abortion argument. They want abortion to be considered wrong.... just cos..... so they run to the extremes to manufacture an argument where no other argument has supported their agenda.

The word "justify" is a bit misleading here for a start. You do not have to "justify" something you have not managed to indict in the first place. You have utterly failed to offer a single anti-abortion argument on this thread. So since you can not find any actual reasons to think abortion is, in and of itself, a bad or evil or wrong thing..... no one NEEDS to "justify" anything. Like your misuse of the word "sacrosanct" you are using "justify" to do the same thing.... which is to pretend your personal opinion is correct by default.

That said though, there are any number of medical reasons for abortions. Ectopic pregnancies are just an example where something has gone wrong with the pregnancy itself. There are however many conditions which will lead to the fetus not surviving to term, or do die soon after birth. There is no reason to force a woman to continue to carry such a pregnancy against her will, is there? Especially, but not solely, because it can cause all kinds of physical and emotional complications for that woman the longer the pregnancy continues.

In 2015 in the United States about 1% of abortions took place after week 21 for example. Just 1%. The reasons given at the time were such as health risks to the woman and fatal fetal abnormalities. Further where possible, we can move to terminate just the pregnancy not the baby. If there are health risks for the woman who is pregnant, and it is possible to remove the baby from her without killing either, this is of course the outcome we should target. Especially as our medical ability to keep such a baby alive improve over time.

She should certainly, in theory, be able to terminate the PREGNANCY at that point. She should absolutely have that right and I see nothing against it. Though having a "right" does not automatically mean we have to provide that service as a society. But I see no reason not to really if resources allow.

Once again, as I said in posts you ignored and again above in this very post.... when a pregnancy reaches that stage we terminate the pregnancy not the baby. As in we delivery the baby by inducing early labor or removal surgically. I see no argument at all for supporting a woman's right to terminate the baby at that point however.