UK Abortion Law

[BobsPigeon]

AJL308 said:

BobsPigeon said:

Hyperbolic nonsense, this thread was started in good faith to discuss the legality of abortion.

In law nobody has the "right" to control there own body to the detriment of others or wider society, this was pretty much concluded by Hobbes and Locke 300+ years ago and no one's been able to really undermine or argue social contract theory since so I doubt your bleating is going to add anything.

That's just rubbish from the outset. You can lawfully kill someone in legitimate defence of your own body, for starters. That's most certainly to the detriment of the dead person.

Your analogy doesn't apply here though as what "others" does abortion cause a detriment to? The only detriment is that some people who don't agree with it might be a bit offended and there is no right not to be offended.

The boldened type is a very crude paraphrasing of the late enlightenment idea of the "social contract" popularised by Hobbes and Locke's work which essentially forms the bedrock of most modern thinking on law, in fact Locke's work is widely credited as a huge influence on the founding documents of the US.

We submit ourselves to the rule of law and as subjects of the state and forgo certain liberties and give up a certain amount of agency over our own bodies in exchange for the benefits that enlightenment civilised societies affords us.

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.

But I wouldn't consider a pregnancy to be the sort of high stakes situation confronting a burglar to be, although I understand it could be for some women in some circumstances, and in those circumstances I would definitely support them acting in a mode of "self defense".

The law and reality of "self defense" are also extremely emotive, misconstrued and misinterpreted.

[BobsPigeon]

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 don't think I'm being absolutist at all...

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.

[BobsPigeon]

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.

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]

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).

[BobsPigeon]

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.

[BobsPigeon]

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.

Are you male per chance ?

That's not helpful. If you're a woman and think you're reproductive rights include access to unquestioned late term abortions than that's fair enough, that's a valid opinion, but claiming anyone who disagrees is simply trying to "control" you is an appeal too far for me and I doubt you'd find many women who would agree. And as I suspect you're not a woman and are just a man parroting something you think you heard a women say once I'm a bit sceptical. Non of the women in my life would hold that opinion, there are women and men on both sides of this argument.

[BobsPigeon]

InitialDave said:

HM-2 said:

Also a valid point given the "heart" doesn't bear any structural resemblance to a heart until around 10 weeks.

Yep, it's just layers upon layers of bullst to try and support an emotive, and wrong, "people are killing babies" argument.

At some point between initial conception and birth a baby comes into being.... I think we would all consider termination at 36 weeks to be a horrific tragedy for all concerned and definitely discouraged in law.

So why can't both sides of this argument present considered opinion when that is, I have said for me it's before 24 probably after 12... For some its conception, which I find extreme but at least they're honest or brave enough to put their opinion forward, for some its just a case of waiting for someone else to say something and then attacking it ...

Maybe we should have just had a poll and been done with it, it does seem to be the crux of the matter.

[BobsPigeon]

InitialDave said:

BobsPigeon said:

So why can't both sides of this argument present considered opinion when that is,

OK, my opinion is it's when a woman and her doctor agree on it.

I think that would yield very variable outcomes. Certainly not a basis for good law. Doctors are people too, with varying opinions I suggest. As are women so I've been told.