UK Abortion Law
Discussion
BobsPigeon said:
During the 1600's across Europe more men were convicted of being witches than women... True story.
At the risk of coming across as some sort of insane incel, which I'm definitely not, I think the idea that abortion laws are some sort of integral part of women's liberation from the yoke of patriarchal oppression is a fairly weak trope.
I think you could definitely argue that of the pill and other methods of birth control and as the cultural shift of the 60s and early 70s caused such a jamboree of new cultural freedoms it all gets mashed together with hindsight, but I'm deeply concerned that abortion should be treated as a means of birth control, and that is not the purpose of the 1967 act as far as I can tell. The purpose of the act is to prevent women suffering "harm" not suffering a pregnancy.
Several posters asking above what my argument actually is. It's partly to do with the shift in viability given medical advances, so from that point of view yes it is about dates, a reduction to 18 weeks before the higher medical requirement threshold would, I think, be more reasonable.
But more it's about the silly and dishonest ambiguity of the current UK law where we effectively have abortion on request up to 24 weeks even though that's not a reasonable reading of the law even if it is a literal and logical one, especially again given medical advances which means the risk of carrying a pregnancy full term have been massively reduced since the 1960s.
What is the likelihood of a 19-week foetus being likely to survive? Or come to that, a 20-week? At the risk of coming across as some sort of insane incel, which I'm definitely not, I think the idea that abortion laws are some sort of integral part of women's liberation from the yoke of patriarchal oppression is a fairly weak trope.
I think you could definitely argue that of the pill and other methods of birth control and as the cultural shift of the 60s and early 70s caused such a jamboree of new cultural freedoms it all gets mashed together with hindsight, but I'm deeply concerned that abortion should be treated as a means of birth control, and that is not the purpose of the 1967 act as far as I can tell. The purpose of the act is to prevent women suffering "harm" not suffering a pregnancy.
Several posters asking above what my argument actually is. It's partly to do with the shift in viability given medical advances, so from that point of view yes it is about dates, a reduction to 18 weeks before the higher medical requirement threshold would, I think, be more reasonable.
But more it's about the silly and dishonest ambiguity of the current UK law where we effectively have abortion on request up to 24 weeks even though that's not a reasonable reading of the law even if it is a literal and logical one, especially again given medical advances which means the risk of carrying a pregnancy full term have been massively reduced since the 1960s.
You earlier accused the 24-week date to be arbitrary. It was not. It was based on medical advice as to the viability of a foetus at that period. Before that date, there were likely to be life-long malformations that ‘medical advances’ of the time were unable to limit.
28-week premature births have substantial problems of their own. The possibilities of sight and hearing loss are significant. Such babies will have eyesight tests weekly but hearing is difficult to assess until virtually full term. At 24 weeks, the likelihood of such problems increase considerably. Knock a full 2 months off the date and you run into probabilities of significant injuries to the foetus.
It seems to me that without significant evidence of your reasons, 18-weeks is where we come fully into the arbitrary region.
AJL308 said:
Yet is was an unambiguous statement which is clearly not true. You do have the right to exercise control of your own body to the detriment of others under certain circumstances.
You say that abortion causes harm to the potential of a human life yet you mentioned "others" in your original statement. A "potential" person is not an "other" to which harm can be caused. If you are applying your analogy rationally then you must also be dead set against any form of contraception or to any sex unless it's specifially intended purpose is to create a child.
I accept what you're saying and have sort of addressed the idea of potential in the last post. I'm not claiming to have a definitive answer on this, I'm just not comfortable with the status quo. You say that abortion causes harm to the potential of a human life yet you mentioned "others" in your original statement. A "potential" person is not an "other" to which harm can be caused. If you are applying your analogy rationally then you must also be dead set against any form of contraception or to any sex unless it's specifially intended purpose is to create a child.
Potential is a poor word and I think I've wrongly used it and I do consider a late term foetus to be more than the potential for life, I consider it to be actual life that can be harmed. A potential scientist, accountant, teacher, movie star, mother, father etc... Probably more accurately. But it sounds ridiculous and absurd to frame the life of a foetus in those terms and over eggs the argument.
BobsPigeon said:
Northernboy said:
BobsPigeon said:
Abortion does indeed cause terminal harm to the potential of a human life, that's without question. Where or when you consider the starting of human life to be is sort of the crux of the issue.
So does contraception.If you are being absolute about this (as you definitely are), so does abstaining from having sex when fertile.
Why are you drawing a distinction between an early abortion (which is quite likely to be of an unviable fetus) and contraception?
In terms of the language that you used above they are equivalent.
Maybe the “potential of” a human life isn’t actually the key thing here, and you just used it without thinking, but if it is, where is your personal line there?
Should we be encouraging all healthy girls from puberty to be trying to conceive, or is the potential of a human life actually a terrible defining line for the law to mandate actions over?
I have said above and I believe quite strongly that there is, or should be, a clear distinction between abortions and birth control, that's one of the failings of the current law which I don't think was ever passed by parliament with that express idea in mind.
Potential is a poor term... You could argue that I've got two legs and can run and as such I have the potential to win an Olympic gold medal as Usain Bolt, that might be true in once sense but it's also clearly absurd... There's around 100million sperm in every ml of spunk... The chain of causality towards an egg being fertilised is an absolute minefield - the potential outcome of 99.999999999999 (and more)% of sperms is to die somewhere in transit (or on a Kleenex). Likewise a women's eggs to a lesser degree.
Potential human life of any given single gamete or even army of gametes Vs potential human life of a single given zygote is orders of magnitude difference. Attempting to conflate the two is a poor argument in my opinion.
AJL308 said:
You are simply trying to re-write what you originally wrote now. You made some very definite, unambiguous statements. It's been demonstrated that you were wrong. Please don't try to pretend that you meant something else.
I don't think I am, and I don't think I did, but nevertheless I didn't start this thread to push an ideological message to anyone or set out a position to defend at all costs, I wanted to understand better what the argument is and what my opinions are on it. I know that's not very 2021 and all that but I won't apologise for changing my mind (although I don't think I have).lrdisco said:
Oh dear. Always about “the unborn child”.
Please stop with the pseudo philosophy. Abortion laws are just another religious, misogynistic way for men to control women.
America is an awful place where gun massacres are just swept under the carpet and the murder of doctors who practice in abortion clinics are welcomed by large parts of the population.
It’s the woman’s right to control her body in all ways.
Well done, first quote and an accusation of misogyny and control.Please stop with the pseudo philosophy. Abortion laws are just another religious, misogynistic way for men to control women.
America is an awful place where gun massacres are just swept under the carpet and the murder of doctors who practice in abortion clinics are welcomed by large parts of the population.
It’s the woman’s right to control her body in all ways.
MikeM6 said:
Pit Pony said:
Rufus Stone said:
Good for the mother, not so good for the unborn child though.
...And that much of the people who profess to be Christian across the world are very much Not.
Do they really think that Jesus would have condemned someone who has had an abortion, or offer that person love and understanding?
They are sanctimonious, nasty and judgemental and hypocritical. .
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
And me. An agnostic none believer brought up by born again dance in the aisle Christians.
I'll throw the first stone if you like and I know where it aim it. The bible belt of the USA
Northernboy said:
There’s no clear line there though, and we can’t legislate based on such a wooly definition.
I seem to remember a Philip K Dick tale where you could be 'aborted' up until you could demonstrate the ability to calculate some algebra. As for Texas, I expect the Taliban will be calling out the US for being so illiberal within two decades.
BobsPigeon said:
Biggy Stardust said:
Bill said:
What would be your cut off?
Mine would be when the individual is capable of independent life away from the mother. It's as good a definition as any & works for my ethics.This is the consequence of empowering the religious right of the Christianity to win votes for the last 30 years. The republicans are open in this mission.
They bleat on about the constitution when it suits them and fight tooth and nail to install the legislators to reverse constitutional decisions when it doesn’t suit them.
Awful.
They bleat on about the constitution when it suits them and fight tooth and nail to install the legislators to reverse constitutional decisions when it doesn’t suit them.
Awful.
Derek Smith said:
What is the likelihood of a 19-week foetus being likely to survive? Or come to that, a 20-week?
You earlier accused the 24-week date to be arbitrary. It was not. It was based on medical advice as to the viability of a foetus at that period. Before that date, there were likely to be life-long malformations that ‘medical advances’ of the time were unable to limit.
28-week premature births have substantial problems of their own. The possibilities of sight and hearing loss are significant. Such babies will have eyesight tests weekly but hearing is difficult to assess until virtually full term. At 24 weeks, the likelihood of such problems increase considerably. Knock a full 2 months off the date and you run into probabilities of significant injuries to the foetus.
It seems to me that without significant evidence of your reasons, 18-weeks is where we come fully into the arbitrary region.
The problem with this line of thinking is that you end up in a technological discussion as much as anything else. If you ignore the religious drivel, then you could argue that most of this debate boils down to technology. We used to have a time limit of 28 weeks, but in 1990, 24 weeks was considered “survivable” - that is not some moral judgement of the value of a life, but a view of our capability as a species to maintain life in extreme circumstances. If technology improves, should the date change further? If sufficient technology existed to sustain a 16 week embryo - should that be the limit?You earlier accused the 24-week date to be arbitrary. It was not. It was based on medical advice as to the viability of a foetus at that period. Before that date, there were likely to be life-long malformations that ‘medical advances’ of the time were unable to limit.
28-week premature births have substantial problems of their own. The possibilities of sight and hearing loss are significant. Such babies will have eyesight tests weekly but hearing is difficult to assess until virtually full term. At 24 weeks, the likelihood of such problems increase considerably. Knock a full 2 months off the date and you run into probabilities of significant injuries to the foetus.
It seems to me that without significant evidence of your reasons, 18-weeks is where we come fully into the arbitrary region.
Evangelical Christians might need to consider the fact that if what they believe is true, God is the greatest killer of unborn children in history. Didn't he basically wipe out the whole population of the world in the great flood, bar Noah and his family. He must have drowned millions of pregnant women, thus killing their babies. And he was forever smiting entire tribes who got on the wrong side of the Israelites. with no doubt the pregnant women included.
Then there was the 10 plagues of Egypt, which concluded with the killing of all first born children. I mean ffs, if we're talking about late term abortions, it doesn't get much later than that!!
Then there was the 10 plagues of Egypt, which concluded with the killing of all first born children. I mean ffs, if we're talking about late term abortions, it doesn't get much later than that!!
Iwantafusca said:
How much is this about “the unborn child “ , and more about controlling women ?
A few posters have suggested it's about controlling women, I'm not buying it though. But as only women can have abortions I guess it's inevitable it'll be suggested, I really don't think it's part of it though in 21st century Britain.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Evangelical Christians might need to consider the fact that if what they believe is true, God is the greatest killer of unborn children in history. Didn't he basically wipe out the whole population of the world in the great flood, bar Noah and his family. He must have drowned millions of pregnant women, thus killing their babies. And he was forever smiting entire tribes who got on the wrong side of the Israelites. with no doubt the pregnant women included.
Then there was the 10 plagues of Egypt, which concluded with the killing of all first born children. I mean ffs, if we're talking about late term abortions, it doesn't get much later than that!!
I think the below is a good description:Then there was the 10 plagues of Egypt, which concluded with the killing of all first born children. I mean ffs, if we're talking about late term abortions, it doesn't get much later than that!!
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidial, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Evangelical Christians might need to consider the fact that if what they believe is true, God is the greatest killer of unborn children in history. Didn't he basically wipe out the whole population of the world in the great flood, bar Noah and his family. He must have drowned millions of pregnant women, thus killing their babies. And he was forever smiting entire tribes who got on the wrong side of the Israelites. with no doubt the pregnant women included.
Then there was the 10 plagues of Egypt, which concluded with the killing of all first born children. I mean ffs, if we're talking about late term abortions, it doesn't get much later than that!!
Not forgetting that 1 in 8 pregnancies fail, which means that God kills about 100,000 babies a year, worldwide.Then there was the 10 plagues of Egypt, which concluded with the killing of all first born children. I mean ffs, if we're talking about late term abortions, it doesn't get much later than that!!
The sky-fairy believers need to eff off.
Iwantafusca said:
Rufus Stone said:
Iwantafusca said:
How much is this about “the unborn child “ , and more about controlling women ?
It isn't, but some people think that throwing out an 'ist' nullifies the opinion of someone they disagree with.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff