Abortion - time for a new debate?
Discussion
lauda said:
The relevance is that you seem to be struggling to understand the difference between ending or taking a life and murder. Legal abortion, by its very definition, cannot be murder.
If you are not questioning the principle, but the numbers then your problem is not with abortion but with unwanted pregnancy. Which is a totally different topic for discussion.
We may at crossed purposes here - I've not used the M word anywhere in this thread that I'm aware of.If you are not questioning the principle, but the numbers then your problem is not with abortion but with unwanted pregnancy. Which is a totally different topic for discussion.
If abortion is the de facto 'answer' to unwanted pregnancies, then that's where part of the problem lies (in offering a way out to those who erred). Back in the US there is a TV anchorwoman who said she hoped to meet her unborn children in heaven one day...she'd had multiple abortions but child rearing didn't fit her current career IIRC.
The Don of Croy said:
We may at crossed purposes here - I've not used the M word anywhere in this thread that I'm aware of.
If abortion is the de facto 'answer' to unwanted pregnancies, then that's where part of the problem lies (in offering a way out to those who erred). Back in the US there is a TV anchorwoman who said she hoped to meet her unborn children in heaven one day...she'd had multiple abortions but child rearing didn't fit her current career IIRC.
You're absolutely right, I apologise, I'd confused your OP with dundarach's posts. If abortion is the de facto 'answer' to unwanted pregnancies, then that's where part of the problem lies (in offering a way out to those who erred). Back in the US there is a TV anchorwoman who said she hoped to meet her unborn children in heaven one day...she'd had multiple abortions but child rearing didn't fit her current career IIRC.
What other answer do you propose to unwanted pregnancy though? If you find yourself pregnant and you don't want it, there are only two options. Terminate the pregnancy or have the baby and give it up for adoption. From a mental, emotional and physical health perspective, most women will choose to terminate in those circumstances.
Surely efforts should be focused on preventing people who don't want to get pregnant from getting pregnant in the first place. The level of ignorance around pregnancy and birth control among young people is scary. If parents and schools were having more open, honest conversations with kids around sex and sexual health, the issue of unwanted pregnancies wouldn't be so significant and abortions would reduce accordingly.
I don't know what more recent data shows but until recently the UK had one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe. If other countries can deal with this underlying issue, why can't we?
lauda said:
You're absolutely right, I apologise, I'd confused your OP with dundarach's posts.
What other answer do you propose to unwanted pregnancy though? If you find yourself pregnant and you don't want it, there are only two options. Terminate the pregnancy or have the baby and give it up for adoption. From a mental, emotional and physical health perspective, most women will choose to terminate in those circumstances.
Surely efforts should be focused on preventing people who don't want to get pregnant from getting pregnant in the first place. The level of ignorance around pregnancy and birth control among young people is scary. If parents and schools were having more open, honest conversations with kids around sex and sexual health, the issue of unwanted pregnancies wouldn't be so significant and abortions would reduce accordingly.
I don't know what more recent data shows but until recently the UK had one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe. If other countries can deal with this underlying issue, why can't we?
I think this a great post. Abortion, while it may be an hot issue, is not the root cause of the problem. Education needs to occur from a younger age to try to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. What other answer do you propose to unwanted pregnancy though? If you find yourself pregnant and you don't want it, there are only two options. Terminate the pregnancy or have the baby and give it up for adoption. From a mental, emotional and physical health perspective, most women will choose to terminate in those circumstances.
Surely efforts should be focused on preventing people who don't want to get pregnant from getting pregnant in the first place. The level of ignorance around pregnancy and birth control among young people is scary. If parents and schools were having more open, honest conversations with kids around sex and sexual health, the issue of unwanted pregnancies wouldn't be so significant and abortions would reduce accordingly.
I don't know what more recent data shows but until recently the UK had one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe. If other countries can deal with this underlying issue, why can't we?
Lovely word, murder. Carries lots and lots of emotive power. However, it is an invented offence. The word describes something that is defined.
To use it to describe something that falls outside of the definition is hardly helpful. You could call it theft just as accurately, but with a lot less baggage of course.
Some people have suggested that it is murder in their opinion but that just shows that you have not done your research as your (their) opinion is wrong. You could, for instance, suggest that abortion is as 'bad' as murder, although that is hardly taking the discussion on any further.
Should someone who has committed abortion or is party to it (for instance, the woman) been sentenced to life imprisonment? 'Cause that is what you are suggesting by saying that it is the same as murder.
So can we have less of the silly emotive misuse of the word murder? You might as well say abortion is as bad as child destruction, which would be accurate.
Abortion can be considered as homicide but not murder. If, in your opinion, the definition of the offence does not go far enough then you are perfectly welcome to your opinion. It is valid. What is not valid is suggesting that one word covers something that it patently does not.
So use the language properly. If there is something about abortion that you feel is wrong then state it. But a foetus is not a human being. Research has suggested is has no consciousness, something in my opinion which is required before anything can be considered as human. The potential is there of course, but potential is not - by definition, but I think this needs emphasising given the misuse of words so far in this thread - actual.
If one puts oneself, as far as a man can, in the mind of a woman who has been raped and has become pregnant then I would suggest that there can be few who would not, religious beliefs to one side, not want that bit of the offender out of her. So should you, in your position of being completely unaffected by the rape or the pregnancy, have any say in the matter?
If you do not believe that abortion should happen then, if a woman, refuse to have an abortion and, if a man, refuse to assist in an abortion. There you are, problem over.
I knew a woman who was given up at birth by a single mother. The world would have been a much poorer place had she not been born. But then one could say exactly the opposite with Hazell.
Criticising the use of the term murder to describe something that is patently not murder is not pedantry. Use the correct word to describe something then we can all sort through the chaff.
To use it to describe something that falls outside of the definition is hardly helpful. You could call it theft just as accurately, but with a lot less baggage of course.
Some people have suggested that it is murder in their opinion but that just shows that you have not done your research as your (their) opinion is wrong. You could, for instance, suggest that abortion is as 'bad' as murder, although that is hardly taking the discussion on any further.
Should someone who has committed abortion or is party to it (for instance, the woman) been sentenced to life imprisonment? 'Cause that is what you are suggesting by saying that it is the same as murder.
So can we have less of the silly emotive misuse of the word murder? You might as well say abortion is as bad as child destruction, which would be accurate.
Abortion can be considered as homicide but not murder. If, in your opinion, the definition of the offence does not go far enough then you are perfectly welcome to your opinion. It is valid. What is not valid is suggesting that one word covers something that it patently does not.
So use the language properly. If there is something about abortion that you feel is wrong then state it. But a foetus is not a human being. Research has suggested is has no consciousness, something in my opinion which is required before anything can be considered as human. The potential is there of course, but potential is not - by definition, but I think this needs emphasising given the misuse of words so far in this thread - actual.
If one puts oneself, as far as a man can, in the mind of a woman who has been raped and has become pregnant then I would suggest that there can be few who would not, religious beliefs to one side, not want that bit of the offender out of her. So should you, in your position of being completely unaffected by the rape or the pregnancy, have any say in the matter?
If you do not believe that abortion should happen then, if a woman, refuse to have an abortion and, if a man, refuse to assist in an abortion. There you are, problem over.
I knew a woman who was given up at birth by a single mother. The world would have been a much poorer place had she not been born. But then one could say exactly the opposite with Hazell.
Criticising the use of the term murder to describe something that is patently not murder is not pedantry. Use the correct word to describe something then we can all sort through the chaff.
Derek Smith said:
Lovely word, murder. Carries lots and lots of emotive power. However, it is an invented offence. The word describes something that is defined.
Every offence is an invented offence, so this is a non-point.Abortion is not defined in law as murder. That is probably a good thing. As a result, however, we have the anomalous situation where an unborn twin killed intentionally in the uterus that would have been born within minutes cannot have been murdered, but its twin, born a few minutes ago and killed intenitonally after birth can have been murdered.
Zod said:
very offence is an invented offence, so this is a non-point.
Abortion is not defined in law as murder. That is probably a good thing. As a result, however, we have the anomalous situation where an unborn twin killed intentionally in the uterus that would have been born within minutes cannot have been murdered, but its twin, born a few minutes ago and killed intenitonally after birth can have been murdered.
Plenty of similar 'anomalous' situations exist - using the soldier example, moments before a war declaration I could kill an enemy combatant and that could be murder, whereas moments after it could be a justified killing.Abortion is not defined in law as murder. That is probably a good thing. As a result, however, we have the anomalous situation where an unborn twin killed intentionally in the uterus that would have been born within minutes cannot have been murdered, but its twin, born a few minutes ago and killed intenitonally after birth can have been murdered.
lauda said:
You're absolutely right, I apologise, I'd confused your OP with dundarach's posts.
What other answer do you propose to unwanted pregnancy though? If you find yourself pregnant and you don't want it, there are only two options. Terminate the pregnancy or have the baby and give it up for adoption. From a mental, emotional and physical health perspective, most women will choose to terminate in those circumstances.
Surely efforts should be focused on preventing people who don't want to get pregnant from getting pregnant in the first place. The level of ignorance around pregnancy and birth control among young people is scary. If parents and schools were having more open, honest conversations with kids around sex and sexual health, the issue of unwanted pregnancies wouldn't be so significant and abortions would reduce accordingly.
I don't know what more recent data shows but until recently the UK had one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe. If other countries can deal with this underlying issue, why can't we?
Apology accepted - no worries.What other answer do you propose to unwanted pregnancy though? If you find yourself pregnant and you don't want it, there are only two options. Terminate the pregnancy or have the baby and give it up for adoption. From a mental, emotional and physical health perspective, most women will choose to terminate in those circumstances.
Surely efforts should be focused on preventing people who don't want to get pregnant from getting pregnant in the first place. The level of ignorance around pregnancy and birth control among young people is scary. If parents and schools were having more open, honest conversations with kids around sex and sexual health, the issue of unwanted pregnancies wouldn't be so significant and abortions would reduce accordingly.
I don't know what more recent data shows but until recently the UK had one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe. If other countries can deal with this underlying issue, why can't we?
Your points about unwanted pregnancy are apposite. The two issues are, of course, connected inextricably...it's just the abortion numbers help to highlight the scale of the problem.
I genuinely do not know how - as a society - we can row back on this. It really is a conundrum, except that, if girls said no and boys accepted that decision we'd have one less thread to debate.
I've just found a site quoting French stats - they're higher! Although the same site also quotes Italy as having had higher rates 20 years ago (Catholocism notwithstanding)...see http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wr...
Never let facts get in way of a good argument - but only 1.6% of Abortions take place after 20 weeks and most of these are for congenital abnormality or severe disability. An abortion at this stage is a major procedure and certainly not something you would undertake on a whim.
Nearly 80% of abortions take place under 10 weeks.
I know the press portray an early abortion as an easy option, but it really isn't - even taking the morning after pill can really mess up a woman's body with its side effects.
Nearly 80% of abortions take place under 10 weeks.
I know the press portray an early abortion as an easy option, but it really isn't - even taking the morning after pill can really mess up a woman's body with its side effects.
Blue Cat said:
Never let facts get in way of a good argument - but only 1.6% of Abortions take place after 20 weeks and most of these are for congenital abnormality or severe disability. An abortion at this stage is a major procedure and certainly not something you would undertake on a whim.
Nearly 80% of abortions take place under 10 weeks.
I know the press portray an early abortion as an easy option, but it really isn't - even taking the morning after pill can really mess up a woman's body with its side effects.
Oh for heaven's sake, can you stop bringing sense to an argument on PH.Nearly 80% of abortions take place under 10 weeks.
I know the press portray an early abortion as an easy option, but it really isn't - even taking the morning after pill can really mess up a woman's body with its side effects.
dundarach said:
See my definition - does it only become human once the fresh air hits it - no.
It's obvious human from the start isn't it!
How are you defining "start" in the above? The second the sperm hits the egg? I don't see how anyone can consider the result of that transaction to be a human in any way, shape or form. If you do, how do you translate that into other scenarios such as animal welfare without opening up huge ethical conundrums? A housefly is a more complex organism than a zygote, but if you hold said zygote to be obviously human, then surely the fly, as a more complex biological entity at that point has similar rights? It's not a potential fly, it's a real living breathing entity of higher biological complexity. Would you prosecute anyone killing a fly under animal cruelty offences? What about anyone having eggs for breakfast. Are they guilty of denying a potential chicken? Ethical and legal minefield.It's obvious human from the start isn't it!
dundarach said:
roboxm3 said:
No it isn't. It's the intentional killing of a human being. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Legal abortion cannot by definition be murder, other than in your opinion.
Laws are made by man, to suit our consciousness and sense of morals, they also change....Murder is not subjective, it's a legal term for unlawful killing. And abortion is lawful at present.
Regarding the wider argument, there is no choice to be made between abortion and no abortion. The choice is legal or illegal abortion. But abortion has been going on for thousands of years, and always will.
On the issue of the millions of unborn babies killed since 1967, in 1965 my 18 y/o aunt had an abortion. She went on to marry her boyfriend and about 7 yrs later, when they we mid 20s and financially able, they decided to have kids. They wanted 4. They had none. Due to the damage caused by her illegal abortion. That's 4 potential children denied a good life due to the unavailability of a safe hygienic abortion.
This is not an easy subject, and not black and white, despite what Christian nutjobs and rampant feminists on either side of the debate may claim.
Termination is very harmful to the women involved too - they are led to believe it's a simple medical procedure which is over with quickly and they then continue with their lives as if it's never happened . . . but there are 1000's of women in therapy and counselling, often for many years, because of what they did. This is not advertised or even spoken about by the clinics or the feminists - the right to choose is seen as the over riding right and takes precedence.
Another issue is that men seem to never be held to account ! It takes 2 to create a baby and both male and female had a choice then - to either engage in sex or not. It's at this point that the right to choose should be exercised. Why are so many men never held to account ? If they were then a huge percentage of women would be willing to have the baby and not terminate it. We live in a culture where some men regard women and sex as disposable . . . fun activities. This is not how sex is supposed to be - it's for bonding, procreation and pleasure between married couples. Call me what you will (I've got a very thick skin !) but this is how it is supposed to be - casual sex is not respecting ourselves - either men or women - and it causes the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies.
If the law was even enforced properly regarding the abortion act, then 99% of terminations would not happen but Doctors are too scared of the "right to choose" mob to do it. If that happened and men were forced to be accountable and pay for the upkeep of the child then attitudes to sex would soon change and women would have greater respect from men, terminations would drop and the welfare bill would also be significantly reduced.
To argue over weather it's right to terminate at x weeks or y weeks is missing the point.
Another issue is that men seem to never be held to account ! It takes 2 to create a baby and both male and female had a choice then - to either engage in sex or not. It's at this point that the right to choose should be exercised. Why are so many men never held to account ? If they were then a huge percentage of women would be willing to have the baby and not terminate it. We live in a culture where some men regard women and sex as disposable . . . fun activities. This is not how sex is supposed to be - it's for bonding, procreation and pleasure between married couples. Call me what you will (I've got a very thick skin !) but this is how it is supposed to be - casual sex is not respecting ourselves - either men or women - and it causes the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies.
If the law was even enforced properly regarding the abortion act, then 99% of terminations would not happen but Doctors are too scared of the "right to choose" mob to do it. If that happened and men were forced to be accountable and pay for the upkeep of the child then attitudes to sex would soon change and women would have greater respect from men, terminations would drop and the welfare bill would also be significantly reduced.
To argue over weather it's right to terminate at x weeks or y weeks is missing the point.
dundarach said:
BliarOut said:
But you condone that murder...
Exactly, struggle isn't it!bit like stealing MP3's or Movies, it stealing plain and simple, if we do it, don't lie to ourselves - and before the keyboard warriors jump on me, no I'm not comparing.
I just feel that we must face up to the realities of the decisions which we take, if we take a human life - for whatever reasons - we are taking a human life.
Go stand is special school (for severely handicapped children), I have and then consider that they've had the same teacher for 19 years and at 19 state funding for teaching finishes and they are put out to centres - and then ask yourself what quality of life they have....
George111 said:
Termination is very harmful to the women involved too ..
But less harmful than pregnancy.George111 said:
If the law was even enforced properly regarding the abortion act, then 99% of terminations would not happen but Doctors are too scared of the "right to choose" mob to do it.
What is wrong with the way it's enforced currently? Given that being pregnant and giving birth is hugely more risky than an abortion I can't see any argument.Edited by Bill on Tuesday 14th May 20:31
The Don of Croy said:
Not sure I see the relevance?
I'm not questioning the principle, more the numbers. Just seems terribly high...
Okay a wave of the magic wandI'm not questioning the principle, more the numbers. Just seems terribly high...
No more abortions
What we going to do with all the unwanted children?
Or do you believe that they will all magically be born into loving families with a stable relationship and a volvo on the drive?
The way I see it is that women have always had abortions throughout history and as that is the case I'd prefer them to have the best possible medical care when doing so.
I'm not sure how the OP can make a judgment as to whether the current number of abortions is dramatically high or not. 380 per day needs to be put in the context of there being twenty odd million women of childbearing age in the UK. You need to compare the UK with other countries and over time, it's not enough to say "Isn't this a big number?".
I do hope we can at least avoid religious dogma in this discussion. We're not a theocracy in the UK and we reject the asserted moral authority of the Catholic church and their so-called"pro-life" movement.
I'm not sure how the OP can make a judgment as to whether the current number of abortions is dramatically high or not. 380 per day needs to be put in the context of there being twenty odd million women of childbearing age in the UK. You need to compare the UK with other countries and over time, it's not enough to say "Isn't this a big number?".
I do hope we can at least avoid religious dogma in this discussion. We're not a theocracy in the UK and we reject the asserted moral authority of the Catholic church and their so-called"pro-life" movement.
Remember that 1:200 wouldn't make it anyway if they weren't aborted.
If you want to talk numbers 6200 babies a year are still born, with no real change in the numbers over the years.
My view point on the subject has changed a lot since having kids, I am still all for it but think 20 weeks is to late unless there are sound medical reasons.
No right answer.
If you want to talk numbers 6200 babies a year are still born, with no real change in the numbers over the years.
My view point on the subject has changed a lot since having kids, I am still all for it but think 20 weeks is to late unless there are sound medical reasons.
No right answer.
dundarach said:
So yes, abortion is murder simple
Nonsense!The vast majority of gametes, each with the potential of life, are flushed from the body.
Abortion is no more murder than menstruation or masturbation, or celibacy for that matter.
There is no moral or functional difference between celibacy leading to no live birth, sex leading to no live birth, sex with effective contraception leading to no live birth or sex followed by abortion leading to no live birth.
...indeed, if anything, the scenarios involving jiggy fun hold the moral high ground - fun is good!
Life begins at birth, an embryo only has a little more potential than a menstrual flow or nocturnal emission.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff