UK Abortion Law
Discussion
BobsPigeon said:
You can terminate a pregnancy if you're going to suffer more or risk suffering more by not terminating... But I'm not sure that should be read as a purely mathematical statement of risk, a healthy women carrying a healthy baby to full term is also pretty low risk... Not zero risk obviously... Perhaps lower than aborting, but I'm sure there's individual cases where for physical or mental reasons a women would have been better of carrying to full term than aborting... Obviously knowing the risk of that before hand is impossible, a meta data mathematical reasoning isn't enough for me I'm afraid.
The risk of mortality or morbidity resulting from abortion, particularly non-surgical, is orders of magnitude lower than the the risk or mortality or morbidity from childbirth.The accepted consensus in the UK is that, if properly risk managed, the typical abortion has no demonstrable mental health outcomes.
Unless there are other factors at play, the net result of this is, that in the instance of any woman seeking abortion of her own free will who is judged to be sound of mind, the judgement made will almost always be in the affirmative. I'll explain the "almost" in a minute.
BobsPigeon said:
If you look on Wikipedia you'll see the UK (excluding NI) is not considered to be a state where "no questions asked" elective abortion is legal as it is currently (or was) in most US states.
That's because technically the law makes the judgement the responsibility of the two doctors concerned. In technical terms it isn't "no questions asked" but pretty much any reasoning including not being emotionally or financially prepared for parenthood, can be accepted reasons. Technically it is possible that doctors will refuse a woman an abortion even if she is sound of mind and requesting of her own free will if they don't believe the reason is justified, but this is exceedingly rare. Doctors have no explicit or implicit power to actually interrogate circumstances further or seek evidence for a justification; they in essence have to take their patient at their word. There is also no requirement to actually examine the abortion recipient beyond the basic determination.
Studies show around 2% of women who seek abortions are unable to access them, but the majority of these are results of lack of availability or access rather than denial.
Esceptico said:
Vanden Saab said:
If a person is created at the moment of conception then we have to assume you are also against the morning after pill. 
If abortion is morally wrong then so is the morning after pill.TwigtheWonderkid said:
BobsPigeon said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BobsPigeon said:
I'm not entirely convinced by your argument about recreational sex above either, I'm no evolutionary phychologist either but I'm not sure your the suggestion that recreational sex (or any other recreational activities) don't encode some sort of deeper cultural or biological imperative.
I didn't use the term recreational sex. I just stated that humans, along with the other 4 great apes, and some of the more intelligent marine mammals, have evolved to use sex as something way beyond a tool for procreation, to the extent that procreation isn't even the primary function of sex in humans. This seems pretty clear given the level of sexual activity in humans compared to the number of times that it leads or can lead to pregnancy. The church has been keen to claim that sex is purely for procreation as a way of demonising homosexuality, and latterly to argue against gay marriage, yet those same churches would have no issue in marrying a widow and widower in their 60s.
But I'm given to thinking that virtually everything we do (I can't speak for the chimps or bonobos) is in some way related to the continuance of our genetic line. And in that sense, whether we know or accept it it, each and every time we have sex (even homosexual sex I'd argue) we are giving way to some part of our operating system that is interrupting the day to day to remind us we need to keep f
king. The point is, most mammals have sex to reproduce, and for no other reason. Humans aren't like that. We have sex for social bonding, stress relief, or whatever reason. We've evolved that way. Just like the other great apes we are closely related to.
If you look at human’s relationship with food and all the rituals surrounding it and the importance food plays in social bonding that would also obscure the underlying truth that we need to eat to survive and we have evolved to feel hunger and enjoy eating to motivate us to look for food.
Similarly we have evolved to enjoy sex and to be horny. That motivates us to have sex, the main purpose and benefit from the viewpoint of the species being procreation, not recreation.
Esceptico said:
roger.mellie said:
You keep denying that a new, separate life (different from either parent cell ie sperm and egg) comes into existence at conception but then never offer an explanation of why it doesn’t or give an alternative that makes more sense.
You keep denying that you’re expressing an opinion rather than a fact.
I don’t really care about what you think about the sanctity of life at conception. I very much think your views should not be allowed to set public policy without challenge. Without recourse to religion too. Air them, be challenged on them, don’t expect special privileges.
Gecko1978 said:
Your argument is clearly just your moral perspective others see it differently. If as I noted earlier its possible to create a human without 2 people but rather just replicate cells (dolly the sheep), then in thst case is not terminating the growth just like having a hair cut. Morally to me it is and then I make the jump that you can do whatever you want with your body. Just like if you had a parasite infection you would kill that off too if you desired.
Human clones are created every day somewhere in the world - that is what identical twins are. Do you think it would morally okay to cull one of the two twins because they were an offshoot of the other? roger.mellie said:
I actually don’t keep denying it, are you confusing my comment in some post quotes me with me repeatedly quoting?
You keep denying that you’re expressing an opinion rather than a fact.
I don’t really care about what you think about the sanctity of life at conception. I very much think your views should not be allowed to set public policy without challenge. Without recourse to religion too. Air them, be challenged on them, don’t expect special privileges.
It is a fact that the sperm and egg fuse and the DNA combined. It is a fact that the fused cell divides and will continue to divide (until death). It is a fact that the DNA of the fused cell is different from the sperm and egg. None of that is opinion. You keep denying that you’re expressing an opinion rather than a fact.
I don’t really care about what you think about the sanctity of life at conception. I very much think your views should not be allowed to set public policy without challenge. Without recourse to religion too. Air them, be challenged on them, don’t expect special privileges.
None of the above has anything to do with religion. I’m an atheist and very much against organised religion and definitely against evangelical American Christians.
Esceptico said:
This is typical backwards arguing. The thought that IVF involves creating and then destroying people is unpalatable - so let’s just not call them people.
Your argument is rather odd to be honest. The vast majority of life on earth is made up of single cell organisms. Most of the history of life on Earth there were only single cell organisms. Yes you claim that a human in its earliest phase (with more than one cell) is not alive? What does that say about most of life on Earth then?
I think you are focusing on "life". I think the real issue at debate is whether a foetus is "life to which rights should attach".Your argument is rather odd to be honest. The vast majority of life on earth is made up of single cell organisms. Most of the history of life on Earth there were only single cell organisms. Yes you claim that a human in its earliest phase (with more than one cell) is not alive? What does that say about most of life on Earth then?
No one is arguing that protozoan aren't life forms, and no one is arguing that they should have rights.
BobsPigeon said:
ZedLeg said:
Didn’t take this thread long to devolve into exactly the kind of semantic arguments that leads to the situation in the US where women are dehumanised vessels for offspring.
Way to avoid hyperbole dude. Esceptico said:
It is a fact that the sperm and egg fuse and the DNA combined. It is a fact that the fused cell divides and will continue to divide (until death). It is a fact that the DNA of the fused cell is different from the sperm and egg. None of that is opinion.
None of the above has anything to do with religion. I’m an atheist and very much against organised religion and definitely against evangelical American Christians.
The massive leap of “ergo” human you make from there is the problem. No one is arguing with biology. You can’t see the boundary where you go from fact to opinion.None of the above has anything to do with religion. I’m an atheist and very much against organised religion and definitely against evangelical American Christians.
I don’t claim to have the answers, you seem to do, that f
king scares me.Harry Flashman said:
Esceptico said:
This is typical backwards arguing. The thought that IVF involves creating and then destroying people is unpalatable - so let’s just not call them people.
Your argument is rather odd to be honest. The vast majority of life on earth is made up of single cell organisms. Most of the history of life on Earth there were only single cell organisms. Yes you claim that a human in its earliest phase (with more than one cell) is not alive? What does that say about most of life on Earth then?
I think you are focusing on "life". I think the real issue at debate is whether a foetus is "life to which rights should attach".Your argument is rather odd to be honest. The vast majority of life on earth is made up of single cell organisms. Most of the history of life on Earth there were only single cell organisms. Yes you claim that a human in its earliest phase (with more than one cell) is not alive? What does that say about most of life on Earth then?
No one is arguing that protozoan aren't life forms, and no one is arguing that they should have rights.
roger.mellie said:
The massive leap of “ergo” human you make from there is the problem. No one is arguing with biology. You can’t see the boundary where you go from fact to opinion.
I don’t claim to have the answers, you seem to do, that fking scares me.
There is no massive leap. My existence started at conception. You can draw an uninterrupted timeline from that point until today. You are the one claiming that there was some special point on that timeline when I became “human”, not me. You just won’t tell me when that was and on what basis you so graciously allow me to claim that title.I don’t claim to have the answers, you seem to do, that f
king scares me.Esceptico said:
Gecko1978 said:
Your argument is clearly just your moral perspective others see it differently. If as I noted earlier its possible to create a human without 2 people but rather just replicate cells (dolly the sheep), then in thst case is not terminating the growth just like having a hair cut. Morally to me it is and then I make the jump that you can do whatever you want with your body. Just like if you had a parasite infection you would kill that off too if you desired.
Human clones are created every day somewhere in the world - that is what identical twins are. Do you think it would morally okay to cull one of the two twins because they were an offshoot of the other? A human I believe is one breathing on its own outside of another human. We have a law that says said human could do thoes things after 24 weeks in the womb so we dont allow termination. Again I am happy with that.
Ivf often places an number of embryos into the womb an only one survies.
Harry Flashman said:
Esceptico said:
This is typical backwards arguing. The thought that IVF involves creating and then destroying people is unpalatable - so let’s just not call them people.
Your argument is rather odd to be honest. The vast majority of life on earth is made up of single cell organisms. Most of the history of life on Earth there were only single cell organisms. Yes you claim that a human in its earliest phase (with more than one cell) is not alive? What does that say about most of life on Earth then?
I think you are focusing on "life". I think the real issue at debate is whether a foetus is "life to which rights should attach".Your argument is rather odd to be honest. The vast majority of life on earth is made up of single cell organisms. Most of the history of life on Earth there were only single cell organisms. Yes you claim that a human in its earliest phase (with more than one cell) is not alive? What does that say about most of life on Earth then?
No one is arguing that protozoan aren't life forms, and no one is arguing that they should have rights.
king slippers again you're the opitamy of evil... Apparently. Now I don't have the answers her, but a discussion about it can't do any harm. I think we all agree there is a shade of grey issue going on, people just don't seem to agree where to draw the lines. Either end of the spectrum would appear unsuitable.
Esceptico said:
Many posts back I made that exact point. Biologically a new human life starts at conception. Some on here seemed to be arguing against that.
No agreed consensus amongst the scientific community actually exists on what constitutes "life"; for instance there's not really agreement on whether viruses or viroids are "life". Hence the term not really being used in most scientific discourse.Esceptico said:
roger.mellie said:
The massive leap of “ergo” human you make from there is the problem. No one is arguing with biology. You can’t see the boundary where you go from fact to opinion.
I don’t claim to have the answers, you seem to do, that fking scares me.
There is no massive leap. My existence started at conception. You can draw an uninterrupted timeline from that point until today. You are the one claiming that there was some special point on that timeline when I became “human”, not me. You just won’t tell me when that was and on what basis you so graciously allow me to claim that title.I don’t claim to have the answers, you seem to do, that f
king scares me.You “believe” that the moment of conception is the spark of life that all of a sudden profers all human rights to something that’s little more than a bunch of cells. That’s bulls
t. Potential is not achievement to be blunt about it. You obviously think there’s no transition, I have doubts about where the transition should be, but I respect the woman’s right to decide. You don’t.roger.mellie said:
Again you’re trying to apply binary logic to fuzzy logic problems.
You “believe” that the moment of conception is the spark of life that all of a sudden profers all human rights to something that’s little more than a bunch of cells. That’s bullst. Potential is not achievement to be blunt about it. You obviously think there’s no transition, I have doubts about where the transition should be, but I respect the woman’s right to decide. You don’t.
You seem to be getting very upset and making this personal, using swear words and abusing me. Shouting at me and bringing in extraneous arguments isn’t addressing the points I raised. You “believe” that the moment of conception is the spark of life that all of a sudden profers all human rights to something that’s little more than a bunch of cells. That’s bulls
t. Potential is not achievement to be blunt about it. You obviously think there’s no transition, I have doubts about where the transition should be, but I respect the woman’s right to decide. You don’t.HM-2 said:
No agreed consensus amongst the scientific community actually exists on what constitutes "life"; for instance there's not really agreement on whether viruses or viroids are "life". Hence the term not really being used in most scientific discourse.
There is some dispute about whether viruses are “alive” but I don’t believe there is any serious debate saying that the other three branches of “life” on Earth are not alive. You can have philosophical debates about whether whether things outside the four main categories are “alive” and how we would recognise life outside of Earth but not sure how that is relevant to when an individual human’s existence starts.
Esceptico said:
You seem to be getting very upset and making this personal, using swear words and abusing me. Shouting at me and bringing in extraneous arguments isn’t addressing the points I raised.
Nope, I’m fluent in profanity and enjoy using it, nothing personal.Abusing you? Direct me to where I did and I’ll gladly apologise. Shouting at you? How?
Esceptico said:
There is some dispute about whether viruses are “alive” but I don’t believe there is any serious debate saying that the other three branches of “life” on Earth are not alive.
"Living" and "alive" are synonymous but "life" is somewhat distinct. Multiple definitions of "life" have been proposed, some of which would treat an embryo or foetus as life, some which wouldn't, and some which you could probably argue either way.The proposed NASA definition of life, "a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution", precludes both foetus and parasites because neither are self sustaining. The old MRS GREN acronym, covering movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition, is also questionable whether it can be applied to a foetus...but can be interpreted as categorising prions and certain kinds of crystals as "life".
The scientific consensus has increasingly become that "life" is not a concept that can be demonstrated empirically- that is to say, life in a scientific sense does not actually exist. Over 100 definitions of "life" have been presented, so claims like "science says life begins at conception" are at best misleading and at worst outright false, as it depends very much how you define it.
All of these are moot points anyway because the phrase "life begins at conception" isn't a reference to any of these scores of conflicting definitions, its reference to the religious concept of ensoulment.
Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 20th June 23:12
Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 20th June 23:16
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff