Abortion. Pro or anti?.

[redderneck]

Not my body,


not my decision.

So do you believe that abortion should be allowed right up until birth?

Piling in with an extreme like that merits a response. Here's one. I'd be tempted to argue the merits of post-birth termination when faced with such dogma.

And now I will wander off, in my, anti-abortion as contraception, but resolutely pro-choice, funk.

[Random1]

Not my body,


not my decision.

So do you believe that abortion should be allowed right up until birth?

Piling in with an extreme like that merits a response. Here's one. I'd be tempted to argue the merits of post-birth termination when faced with such dogma.

And now I will wander off, in my, anti-abortion as contraception, but resolutely pro-choice, funk.

It’s like no one has taught you how to explore a moral argument before.

One of the best ways to test a moral argument is to take it to its extreme. It helps find its weaknesses and limitations.

[shaggy]

So, in a normal pregnancy, when do you find it morally acceptable for an abortion?

From what I've read, a fetus starts feeling pain around 25 - 30 weeks and I'm not big on causing pain unecessarily be that to a woodlouse or a deer.

I'd say 24 - 26 weeks (6 months) is ample time to have decided whether or not you actually want a kid, so those two dovetail.

Yeah, I’ve settled at about 24 weeks too, as that’s when the brain starts to develop the higher functions.

My absolute preference would be a case by case scan of the foetus brain to see whether the higher functions have developed, as timeframes in pregnancy seem a touch arbitrary when there’s a cliff edge based upon time.

So I guess neither of you have experience of extreme-premature births then. 24 weeks is a viable age to live.

[Random1]

From what I've read, a fetus starts feeling pain around 25 - 30 weeks and I'm not big on causing pain unecessarily be that to a woodlouse or a deer.

I'd say 24 - 26 weeks (6 months) is ample time to have decided whether or not you actually want a kid, so those two dovetail.

Yeah, I’ve settled at about 24 weeks too, as that’s when the brain starts to develop the higher functions.

My absolute preference would be a case by case scan of the foetus brain to see whether the higher functions have developed, as timeframes in pregnancy seem a touch arbitrary when there’s a cliff edge based upon time.

So I guess neither of you have experience of extreme-premature births then. 24 weeks is a viable age to live.

They can, yes. But the only way I can reconcile the woman’s rights against the child’s rights is that the foetus only gets them once they have enough brain development to be considered a person in their own rights.

Otherwise I struggle to combat the ‘life starts at conception’ argument.

[Guy Smiley]

So do you believe that abortion should be allowed right up until birth?

Piling in with an extreme like that merits a response. Here's one. I'd be tempted to argue the merits of post-birth termination when faced with such dogma.

And now I will wander off, in my, anti-abortion as contraception, but resolutely pro-choice, funk.

It’s like no one has taught you how to explore a moral argument before.

One of the best ways to test a moral argument is to take it to its extreme. It helps find its weaknesses and limitations.

Ok…

I get where you’re coming from.

Panels comprised solely of women should be established for the purpose of determining whether young male adults are suitable for the role of responsible parenting then, and those candidates who are determined to be unsuitable should be chemically castrated.

[shaggy]

So, in a normal pregnancy, when do you find it morally acceptable for an abortion?

From what I've read, a fetus starts feeling pain around 25 - 30 weeks and I'm not big on causing pain unecessarily be that to a woodlouse or a deer.

I'd say 24 - 26 weeks (6 months) is ample time to have decided whether or not you actually want a kid, so those two dovetail.

Yeah, I’ve settled at about 24 weeks too, as that’s when the brain starts to develop the higher functions.

My absolute preference would be a case by case scan of the foetus brain to see whether the higher functions have developed, as timeframes in pregnancy seem a touch arbitrary when there’s a cliff edge based upon time.

So does the age at which a termination should be allowed the preserve if those who have been through extreme premature births much like the ultimate argument that women should determine the right terminate?

[Random1]

Piling in with an extreme like that merits a response. Here's one. I'd be tempted to argue the merits of post-birth termination when faced with such dogma.

And now I will wander off, in my, anti-abortion as contraception, but resolutely pro-choice, funk.

It’s like no one has taught you how to explore a moral argument before.

One of the best ways to test a moral argument is to take it to its extreme. It helps find its weaknesses and limitations.

Ok…

I get where you’re coming from.

Panels comprised solely of women should be established for the purpose of determining whether young male adults are suitable for the role of responsible parenting then, and those candidates who are determined to be unsuitable should be chemically castrated.

Strange example, but yeah, your example does test the logic of preventing abortion by preventing non-procreational sex.

Suspect there’s be a pretty disastrous population crash, and a draining of the gene pool, so potentially species ending.

[Random1]

From what I've read, a fetus starts feeling pain around 25 - 30 weeks and I'm not big on causing pain unecessarily be that to a woodlouse or a deer.

I'd say 24 - 26 weeks (6 months) is ample time to have decided whether or not you actually want a kid, so those two dovetail.

Yeah, I’ve settled at about 24 weeks too, as that’s when the brain starts to develop the higher functions.

My absolute preference would be a case by case scan of the foetus brain to see whether the higher functions have developed, as timeframes in pregnancy seem a touch arbitrary when there’s a cliff edge based upon time.

So does the age at which a termination should be allowed the preserve if those who have been through extreme premature births much like the ultimate argument that women should determine the right terminate?

No. Think you’ve got me mixed up with one of the other guys.

I’m the one arguing that anyone can input on a moral debate regardless of their experience.

[Guy Smiley]

It’s like no one has taught you how to explore a moral argument before.

One of the best ways to test a moral argument is to take it to its extreme. It helps find its weaknesses and limitations.

Ok…

I get where you’re coming from.

Panels comprised solely of women should be established for the purpose of determining whether young male adults are suitable for the role of responsible parenting then, and those candidates who are determined to be unsuitable should be chemically castrated.

Strange example, but yeah, your example does test the logic of preventing abortion by preventing non-procreational sex.

Suspect there’s be a pretty disastrous population crash, and a draining of the gene pool, so potentially species ending.

Ah…. So you don’t believe women are capable of making a sensible, informed decision.

[sockwithaticket]

From what I've read, a fetus starts feeling pain around 25 - 30 weeks and I'm not big on causing pain unecessarily be that to a woodlouse or a deer.

I'd say 24 - 26 weeks (6 months) is ample time to have decided whether or not you actually want a kid, so those two dovetail.

Yeah, I’ve settled at about 24 weeks too, as that’s when the brain starts to develop the higher functions.

My absolute preference would be a case by case scan of the foetus brain to see whether the higher functions have developed, as timeframes in pregnancy seem a touch arbitrary when there’s a cliff edge based upon time.

So I guess neither of you have experience of extreme-premature births then. 24 weeks is a viable age to live.

With massive medical intervention. 55 - 68% survival rate depending on the studies you read. And that's a wanted baby that just happens to be born prematurely.

One that's still inside a woman and unwanted, yes I'm comfortable saying she can still choose to abort at that point. In the vast majority of cases it doesn't get that far, so leaving it this late is basically just edge cases who for whatever reason weren't able to do it earlier.

[Random1]

Ok…

I get where you’re coming from.

Panels comprised solely of women should be established for the purpose of determining whether young male adults are suitable for the role of responsible parenting then, and those candidates who are determined to be unsuitable should be chemically castrated.

Strange example, but yeah, your example does test the logic of preventing abortion by preventing non-procreational sex.

Suspect there’s be a pretty disastrous population crash, and a draining of the gene pool, so potentially species ending.

Ah…. So you don’t believe women are capable of making a sensible, informed decision.

See, I’ve now realised how incredibly sexist I am due to this cleverly constructed thought experiment.

Always learning, me.

[Guy Smiley]

There was no construction involved.

I threw the first premise out there as an example of your take it to the extreme philosophy. You provided the rest all on your own.

[Random1]

Yeah, I’ve settled at about 24 weeks too, as that’s when the brain starts to develop the higher functions.

My absolute preference would be a case by case scan of the foetus brain to see whether the higher functions have developed, as timeframes in pregnancy seem a touch arbitrary when there’s a cliff edge based upon time.

So I guess neither of you have experience of extreme-premature births then. 24 weeks is a viable age to live.

With massive medical intervention. 55 - 68% survival rate depending on the studies you read. And that's a wanted baby that just happens to be born prematurely.

One that's still inside a woman and unwanted, yes I'm comfortable saying she can still choose to abort at that point. In the vast majority of cases it doesn't get that far, so leaving it this late is basically just edge cases who for whatever reason weren't able to do it earlier.

I struggle with the viability argument, as if every life is important, then even at 21 weeks there’s a one in ten chance of it being viable. One in ten are pretty decent odds from the foetus’ perspective.

Like I said earlier, the only benefit I see of the viability option is that the pro lifers could pile a load of cash into prenatal health care to lower the age of viability.

[Random1]

There was no construction involved.

I threw the first premise out there as an example of your take it to the extreme philosophy. You provided the rest all on your own.

Yeah, read a book mate.

Testing philosophy and morality by examining extreme arguments is a classical way of examining the world.

You don’t like it, have a pop at Aristotle not me.

[Masterji]

Unless the mothers life is in danger then its wrong.

[Random1]

Unless the mothers life is in danger then its wrong.

Why?

[shaggy]

Yeah, I’ve settled at about 24 weeks too, as that’s when the brain starts to develop the higher functions.

My absolute preference would be a case by case scan of the foetus brain to see whether the higher functions have developed, as timeframes in pregnancy seem a touch arbitrary when there’s a cliff edge based upon time.

So I guess neither of you have experience of extreme-premature births then. 24 weeks is a viable age to live.

With massive medical intervention. 55 - 68% survival rate depending on the studies you read. And that's a wanted baby that just happens to be born prematurely.

One that's still inside a woman and unwanted, yes I'm comfortable saying she can still choose to abort at that point. In the vast majority of cases it doesn't get that far, so leaving it this late is basically just edge cases who for whatever reason weren't able to do it earlier.

When you have been there your whole perspective changes. Choosing to end a viable life is not an easy decision so I am not sure how anybody can be ‘comfortable’ with that decision without having been there and experienced it.

I hope you don’t have to experience such an event.

[Line6 HXFX]

Look, in life you have a group of people who's power comes from being morally superior to others. There are Christians who are that way, simply because acting all morallyy superior gives them a Rush.
They learned to scowl, cross their arms and pout as children, their parents encouraged them and they do it as adults.
Unfortunately these people have set up camp in the area of sex, abortion, etc. They don't really give a shit if you have sex before marriage or have abortions..they just like to have a loud opinion about it.
They want to have a direct route straight to your brain, where they can fuck with your consciousness and get you to feel guilty.


One of the Fox News bimbos actually admitted this once. That she loves being a Christian because it gives her finger wagging in your face time.

Don't give these cunts an inch, is my point.

[Random1]

Look, in life you have a group of people who's power comes from being morally superior to others. There are Christians who are that way, simply because acting all morallyy superior gives them a Rush.
They learned to scowl, cross their arms and pout as children, their parents encouraged them and they do it as adults.
Unfortunately these people have set up camp in the area of sex, abortion, etc. They don't really give a shit if you have sex before marriage or have abortions..they just like to have a loud opinion about it.
They want to have a direct route straight to your brain, where they can fuck with your consciousness and get you to feel guilty.


One of the Fox News bimbos actually admitted this once. That she loves being a Christian because it gives her finger wagging in your face time.

Don't give these cunts an inch, is my point.

I agree, but come on, the woke left are just as righteous as the right (pun very much intended).

Each have their dogma and rejoice in moralising against anyone not conforming. Just that one is a few thousand years old, and the new one is, well, new.

[Raggs]

Oh come on, let's not pretend christianity is some sort of moral high point, "christians" hating on homosexuality do it because it's "icky" for them, or they're ashamed, it's not to do with the bible. They'll all tell you that slavery is immoral, and yet that's happily included in the bible.

Late stage abortions do not happen on whims, let's not pretend they do. Earlier than that, it's not a human being, it's a parasite. To some a very dear parasite, to others not so much.

Just as I said in the other thread, until 12 weeks it's not even a question in my mind, a ridiculously high number of pregnancies never get past that point purely down to nature.

A parent forced to carry a child for no other reason than other people think they should, are likely ruining multiple lives.

I do believe there should be counselling etc freely available to discuss abortion, and for after an abortion, but making it illegal will only lead to it being done in far more dangerous ways.

[laurent]

Very much pro choice.

I think that women should be able to decide as ultimately they bear all the immediate consequences.

On the health point of view it should be noted that legal or not abortions will take place, and so it is better to have medical professionals do it inthe best possible conditions rather than in some back alley.

[Guy Smiley]

Women bear the consequences AND the responsibility…

For sure, adequate counselling is part of the support that should be provided…

And that’s it. Support, not judgement or control.

[ia801310]

Legal and on demand up to the point of viability,

Illegal from the point of viability. Given that you have to have cut-offs in law I would say about 20 weeks. I think 24 weeks is now too late given medical advances.

Otherwise you end up in the moral sewer advocating things like "after birth abortion" or what most people call "cold blooded murder", do they propose grabbing the baby by it's ankles and smashing its head against the wall?

https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261 After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva both got torn apart for this article, and rightly so., if you want to make public and politicians rabidly pro-life and anti-choice then publishing an article called. "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? " Is the way to go. Completely tone deaf to how it will sit with the general public

[Guy Smiley]

Women bear the consequences AND the responsibility…

For sure, adequate counselling is part of the support that should be provided…

And that’s it. Support, not judgement or control.

I think that is way too simple these days. Men also bear the responsibilities and consequences. Foisted on them by the courts or willingly but same result. Well granted the former can be difficult to get stick

I knew someone would try and argue the whole 'not all men' angle...

sure. I paid child support through the West Australian Family Court system for 18 years. I'm very familiar with the sense of disadvantage some men feel at being held accountable for fathering a child. There are apocrypha;l stories of men being taken for a ride by women hell bent on some form of revenge for the act of having them yelp with pleasure for a too short moment in their otherwise desecrated and friendless lives.

I have one of those stories.

It takes nothing away from what I'm saying... women bear the responsibility. Some guys are great spouses and do a wonderful job, and they are the outliers.

Juat about every poster in here has, at some stage, expressed the joy and relief of getting away from the family and having a night / weekend / regular jaunts to whereever with the boys. It's what men do because they aspire to it, in the main. The women run the house and manage the kids.

[Raggs]

Juat about every poster in here has, at some stage, expressed the joy and relief of getting away from the family and having a night / weekend / regular jaunts to whereever with the boys. It's what men do because they aspire to it, in the main. The women run the house and manage the kids.

My wife also very much enjoys her nights out and getting away from the family. Does that mean she doesn't want to be with them?

I love having the odd night out, but just because I enjoy getting away here and there, doesn't mean I want to be away all the time. Enjoying time away, male or female, doesn't make you any less of an excellent caregiver.

[MungoMan]

Look, in life you have a group of people who's power comes from being morally superior to others. There are Christians who are that way, simply because acting all morallyy superior gives them a Rush.
They learned to scowl, cross their arms and pout as children, their parents encouraged them and they do it as adults.
Unfortunately these people have set up camp in the area of sex, abortion, etc. They don't really give a shit if you have sex before marriage or have abortions..they just like to have a loud opinion about it.
They want to have a direct route straight to your brain, where they can fuck with your consciousness and get you to feel guilty.


One of the Fox News bimbos actually admitted this once. That she loves being a Christian because it gives her finger wagging in your face time.

Don't give these cunts an inch, is my point.

I agree, but come on, the woke left are just as righteous as the right (pun very much intended).

Yet other lame example of bothsidesism.

One side affords women bodily autonomy in respect of their fertility, The other does not. Not a difficult choice

The Executive Summary is: Go fuck yourself.

[dpedin]

Pro choice. I have a son and a daughter and would support both of them 100% if they were ever in a situation when they had to make this type of decision.

I believe we have it about right in the UK and this is based on pretty rigorous examination, debate and science that has evolved over the years. Having worked and have friends who are obstetricians and neonatologists I have faith in their clinical judgements and the Royal Colleges who represent them in the UK. Without exception the folk I know are sound, principled and honest folk who have thought long and deep about this and have to deal with the practicalities of abortion and what this means for the foetus and the mother/parents, they always act in the best interests of all the parties involved. They obviously have to work within the legal frameworks we have in the UK and I believe they think these are about right.

The US on the other hand has moved away from sensible debate on this and is driven by religious zealots, dodgy political self interest and a monetised healthcare system. Driven by nutters they are always going to end up with a ridiculous and divided policy framework which ignores any sensible medical involvement. I fear for the US to be honest.

[Thor Sedan]

Pro-Choice here.

Tired and overused comment - but women's bodies, women's choices.

I will say that I think in any case that involves a committed couple , a man's opinion and thoughts should be taken into account - but ultimately it is the woman's decision (the fallout of that decision is a personal thing within the relationship).

Regarding how far into a pregnancy should abortion be an option - well as far as necessary. But this is where the care, guidance and advice of health professionals is so important. I am sure that all the talk of late term abortions is very much based around the choices that need to be made for the health and well-being of the Mother - I refuse to believe that the majority who have carried for 30+ weeks and then decide to abort is for basic reasons.

I think my most triggering issue is with the group of people that are anti-abortion that also have no interest in social welfare, funding adoption agencies, making health care accessible for all etc. Once the baby pops out it is signs of relief all-round, pats on the back and then forget that the baby needs protecting as well.

Really scummy.

[Random1]

Look, in life you have a group of people who's power comes from being morally superior to others. There are Christians who are that way, simply because acting all morallyy superior gives them a Rush.
They learned to scowl, cross their arms and pout as children, their parents encouraged them and they do it as adults.
Unfortunately these people have set up camp in the area of sex, abortion, etc. They don't really give a shit if you have sex before marriage or have abortions..they just like to have a loud opinion about it.
They want to have a direct route straight to your brain, where they can fuck with your consciousness and get you to feel guilty.


One of the Fox News bimbos actually admitted this once. That she loves being a Christian because it gives her finger wagging in your face time.

Don't give these cunts an inch, is my point.

I agree, but come on, the woke left are just as righteous as the right (pun very much intended).

Yet other lame example of bothsidesism.

One side affords women bodily autonomy in respect of their fertility, The other does not. Not a difficult choice

The Executive Summary is: Go fuck yourself.

To be fair, I wasn’t responding specifically to abortion on this point, as line6’s post wasn’t specific to abortion.

[Chilli]

Pro choice

But I would prefer that abortion was not considered a form of birth control

Ja. 100% with you.

What does often question my mind is:
Some jobless Welsh skank already has 5 kids, all on benefits. Falls pregnant again to some jobless guy in the village.
When does her promiscuity become a burden to the tax payer?

It is a very complicated situation.

[inactionman]

Pro choice

But I would prefer that abortion was not considered a form of birth control

Ja. 100% with you.

What does often question my mind is:
Some jobless Welsh skank already has 5 kids, all on benefits. Falls pregnant again to some jobless guy in the village.
When does her promiscuity become a burden to the tax payer?

It is a very complicated situation.

Strictly speaking, any benefits they receive are more an investment in the future of the children who will - if all goes to plan and they are supported correctly - ultimately become taxpayers.

I once worked with a moany old spinster who begrudged her taxes going to pay for the education of children she'd never have. It didn't occur to her that her taxes are a contribution for the education she received.

[sockwithaticket]

Pro choice

But I would prefer that abortion was not considered a form of birth control

Ja. 100% with you.

What does often question my mind is:
Some jobless Welsh skank already has 5 kids, all on benefits. Falls pregnant again to some jobless guy in the village.
When does her promiscuity become a burden to the tax payer?

It is a very complicated situation.

Strictly speaking, any benefits they receive are more an investment in the future of the children who will - if all goes to plan and they are supported correctly - ultimately become taxpayers.

I once worked with a moany old spinster who begrudged her taxes going to pay for the education of children she'd never have. It didn't occur to her that her taxes are a contribution for the education she received.

It's also about the broader societal benefit of having an educated population. Everyone pitching in for education via taxation means a base level of attainment (in theory) at all levels for the people you need to interact with in shops or wherever and ensures that those with the ability aren't restricted from rising up to be engineers, doctors etc. by their socio-economic circumstances. The numbers of those professionals wouldn't be enough to service the population if only those who could afford to pay for their kids to undertake that much education were able to pursue such careers.

I've never used the fire service, but I'm pretty happy for my taxes to contribute to having them around for other people that do need them and might not be able to pay if we operated some bizarre privatised system.

Bet she was a joy to be around.

[Chilli]

Ja. 100% with you.

What does often question my mind is:
Some jobless Welsh skank already has 5 kids, all on benefits. Falls pregnant again to some jobless guy in the village.
When does her promiscuity become a burden to the tax payer?

It is a very complicated situation.

Strictly speaking, any benefits they receive are more an investment in the future of the children who will - if all goes to plan and they are supported correctly - ultimately become taxpayers.

I once worked with a moany old spinster who begrudged her taxes going to pay for the education of children she'd never have. It didn't occur to her that her taxes are a contribution for the education she received.

It's also about the broader societal benefit of having an educated population. Everyone pitching in for education via taxation means a base level of attainment (in theory) at all levels for the people you need to interact with in shops or wherever and ensures that those with the ability aren't restricted from rising up to be engineers, doctors etc. by their socio-economic circumstances. The numbers of those professionals wouldn't be enough to service the population if only those who could afford to pay for their kids to undertake that much education were able to pursue such careers.

I've never used the fire service, but I'm pretty happy for my taxes to contribute to having them around for other people that do need them and might not be able to pay if we operated some bizarre privatised system.

Bet she was a joy to be around.

Great post

[Calculon]

The problem is that many, if not most of the children of the underclass are incapable of benefitting from education. They will be unable to hold down a job and be unemployed, living on benefits , just like their parents and grandparents before them.

[average joe]

With all the contraceptives available in this day and age I don't understand why we are still having this argument.

[robmatic]

With all the contraceptives available in this day and age I don't understand why we are still having this argument.

Accidents happen, people have a bad understanding of risk (especially when alcohol is involved) and even if you take all the precautions, they are not 100% effective. I have one friend who is a parent because her IUD failed, and another whose birth control pills didn't work, probably due to a stomach bug.

[average joe]

With all the contraceptives available in this day and age I don't understand why we are still having this argument.

Accidents happen, people have a bad understanding of risk (especially when alcohol is involved) and even if you take all the precautions, they are not 100% effective. I have one friend who is a parent because her IUD failed, and another whose birth control pills didn't work, probably due to a stomach bug.

Ever heard of the morning after pill?

Sure no contra is 100% effective but even ECP's are 89% effective up to 72 hours after. Normal BC is at 99% effectiveness if taken consistently, Condoms 98%. Yes there's always a small chance all these might fail but considering those percentages, the number of abortions should be inconsequential.

[Guy Smiley]

The problem is that many, if not most of the children of the underclass are incapable of benefitting from education. They will be unable to hold down a job and be unemployed, living on benefits , just like their parents and grandparents before them.

Truly a cunt of a post.

[laurent]

The problem is that many, if not most of the children of the underclass are incapable of benefitting from education. They will be unable to hold down a job and be unemployed, living on benefits , just like their parents and grandparents before them.

Truly a cunt of a post.

It's edifying...

[Torquemada 1420]

The problem is that many, if not most of the children of the underclass are incapable of benefitting from education. They will be unable to hold down a job and be unemployed, living on benefits , just like their parents and grandparents before them.

Truly a cunt of a post.

I'm afraid as ugly and elitist a statement as that is in the way he posed it, there is much weight behind it. We have a population explosion and those with the least means to support themselves are the ones driving it.