UK Abortion Law
Discussion
I used to be very pro-choice when I was younger.
When my wife and I were trying for a baby we suffered a number of miscarriages. When we finally succeeded and watched our daughter’s progress via scans it was clear that our daughter was already alive, just not born yet. I realised that my previous position wasn’t consistent with what I saw and felt.
The experience made me reevaluate my views on abortion. Clearly a foetus is alive and abortion involves killing a living being. Morally there doesn’t seem any real difference between infanticide and abortion (I know that in India babies - particularly baby girls - are abandoned at birth and left to die).
A new life starts at conception. The mother and foetus are not the same.
I am not convinced by the “it’s my body” argument. The foetus is not part of the woman’s body. The vast majority of aborted foetuses were conceived through consensual sex. Pregnancy is always a risk with sex - hardly surprising as it is the reason we have sex. Morally it doesn’t seem right that the foetus has to pay with its life for a lack of or failure of contraception.
All the arguments I’ve heard for abortion are self serving and seem to be derived to support a position already decided. As an example people rightly note that many foetuses die naturally in the womb (many before the woman knows she is pregnant). Yet that hardly supports abortion. Everyone is going to die at some point so using a similar argument would suggest murder is not a crime.
Although morally it seems that abortion is wrong, there are many other issues at play eg if abortion is not legal then many women will resort to illegal abortions with much higher risks. Abortion laws are also used to oppress and control women. Many anti abortionists also don’t seem that fussed about protecting foetuses when they turn into babies.
Overall I sort of accept that abortion laws are a necessity but I try not to think too hard about them, otherwise I get morally queasy.
When my wife and I were trying for a baby we suffered a number of miscarriages. When we finally succeeded and watched our daughter’s progress via scans it was clear that our daughter was already alive, just not born yet. I realised that my previous position wasn’t consistent with what I saw and felt.
The experience made me reevaluate my views on abortion. Clearly a foetus is alive and abortion involves killing a living being. Morally there doesn’t seem any real difference between infanticide and abortion (I know that in India babies - particularly baby girls - are abandoned at birth and left to die).
A new life starts at conception. The mother and foetus are not the same.
I am not convinced by the “it’s my body” argument. The foetus is not part of the woman’s body. The vast majority of aborted foetuses were conceived through consensual sex. Pregnancy is always a risk with sex - hardly surprising as it is the reason we have sex. Morally it doesn’t seem right that the foetus has to pay with its life for a lack of or failure of contraception.
All the arguments I’ve heard for abortion are self serving and seem to be derived to support a position already decided. As an example people rightly note that many foetuses die naturally in the womb (many before the woman knows she is pregnant). Yet that hardly supports abortion. Everyone is going to die at some point so using a similar argument would suggest murder is not a crime.
Although morally it seems that abortion is wrong, there are many other issues at play eg if abortion is not legal then many women will resort to illegal abortions with much higher risks. Abortion laws are also used to oppress and control women. Many anti abortionists also don’t seem that fussed about protecting foetuses when they turn into babies.
Overall I sort of accept that abortion laws are a necessity but I try not to think too hard about them, otherwise I get morally queasy.
I think the UK laws are about right. I think discussing the actual cut off is fair enough but in general I couldn’t see things going the same way as the USA.
It seems a bit bizarre how certain issues become party political in the USA. I can’t see how Abortion or Religion (or…..) is any more or less Republican or Democratic. Sides become so entrenched that progress becomes impossible,
It seems a bit bizarre how certain issues become party political in the USA. I can’t see how Abortion or Religion (or…..) is any more or less Republican or Democratic. Sides become so entrenched that progress becomes impossible,
Esceptico said:
I used to be very pro-choice when I was younger.
When my wife and I were trying for a baby we suffered a number of miscarriages. When we finally succeeded and watched our daughter’s progress via scans it was clear that our daughter was already alive, just not born yet. I realised that my previous position wasn’t consistent with what I saw and felt.
The experience made me reevaluate my views on abortion. Clearly a foetus is alive and abortion involves killing a living being. Morally there doesn’t seem any real difference between infanticide and abortion (I know that in India babies - particularly baby girls - are abandoned at birth and left to die).
A new life starts at conception. The mother and foetus are not the same.
I am not convinced by the “it’s my body” argument. The foetus is not part of the woman’s body. The vast majority of aborted foetuses were conceived through consensual sex. Pregnancy is always a risk with sex - hardly surprising as it is the reason we have sex. Morally it doesn’t seem right that the foetus has to pay with its life for a lack of or failure of contraception.
All the arguments I’ve heard for abortion are self serving and seem to be derived to support a position already decided. As an example people rightly note that many foetuses die naturally in the womb (many before the woman knows she is pregnant). Yet that hardly supports abortion. Everyone is going to die at some point so using a similar argument would suggest murder is not a crime.
Although morally it seems that abortion is wrong, there are many other issues at play eg if abortion is not legal then many women will resort to illegal abortions with much higher risks. Abortion laws are also used to oppress and control women. Many anti abortionists also don’t seem that fussed about protecting foetuses when they turn into babies.
Overall I sort of accept that abortion laws are a necessity but I try not to think too hard about them, otherwise I get morally queasy.
I'm sorry about your (historical hopefully) problems.When my wife and I were trying for a baby we suffered a number of miscarriages. When we finally succeeded and watched our daughter’s progress via scans it was clear that our daughter was already alive, just not born yet. I realised that my previous position wasn’t consistent with what I saw and felt.
The experience made me reevaluate my views on abortion. Clearly a foetus is alive and abortion involves killing a living being. Morally there doesn’t seem any real difference between infanticide and abortion (I know that in India babies - particularly baby girls - are abandoned at birth and left to die).
A new life starts at conception. The mother and foetus are not the same.
I am not convinced by the “it’s my body” argument. The foetus is not part of the woman’s body. The vast majority of aborted foetuses were conceived through consensual sex. Pregnancy is always a risk with sex - hardly surprising as it is the reason we have sex. Morally it doesn’t seem right that the foetus has to pay with its life for a lack of or failure of contraception.
All the arguments I’ve heard for abortion are self serving and seem to be derived to support a position already decided. As an example people rightly note that many foetuses die naturally in the womb (many before the woman knows she is pregnant). Yet that hardly supports abortion. Everyone is going to die at some point so using a similar argument would suggest murder is not a crime.
Although morally it seems that abortion is wrong, there are many other issues at play eg if abortion is not legal then many women will resort to illegal abortions with much higher risks. Abortion laws are also used to oppress and control women. Many anti abortionists also don’t seem that fussed about protecting foetuses when they turn into babies.
Overall I sort of accept that abortion laws are a necessity but I try not to think too hard about them, otherwise I get morally queasy.
Morally queasy is a helpful way of putting the matter. People normally use mealy-mouthed words such as uncomfortable, but your one nails it. When my wife was pregnant with our fourth, I did wonder what my wishes would be if the amniocentesis came back with bad news. A friend fostered Downs Syndrome children and teenagers, and they were all friendly, nice to be with and lived a decent life. Our chair at a rugby club had two such kids, so it would have been ‘uncomfortable’ for me to agree to the decision to terminate. I have no idea what we would have decided, and it was for more than one reason I was relieved that the tests came back clear.
A close friend of mine was abandoned when a child, at an old people’s home of all things, and she believed that, had the laws been as liberal then, she would have been terminated. It made me think, but I am still pro choice. Such women would be exploited without termination as an option.
I would not impose a decision on a woman in such circs, and I would want my wife to have a free choice. There is, evidently, pressure put on women who might be carrying a Downs Syndrome foetus, mainly by other women I’m told. It’s wrong to impose one’s own moral standpoint on others.
I’ve got four kids, and 7, with another on the way, grandchildren. I love kids, which surprised me. I’m ambivalent to everyone else’s kids.
I hope the problems you mentioned are all behind you.
Edited by Derek Smith on Sunday 20th June 08:00
Esceptico said:
I used to be very pro-choice when I was younger.
When my wife and I were trying for a baby we suffered a number of miscarriages. When we finally succeeded and watched our daughter’s progress via scans it was clear that our daughter was already alive, just not born yet. I realised that my previous position wasn’t consistent with what I saw and felt.
The experience made me reevaluate my views on abortion. Clearly a foetus is alive and abortion involves killing a living being. Morally there doesn’t seem any real difference between infanticide and abortion (I know that in India babies - particularly baby girls - are abandoned at birth and left to die).
A new life starts at conception. The mother and foetus are not the same.
I am not convinced by the “it’s my body” argument. The foetus is not part of the woman’s body. The vast majority of aborted foetuses were conceived through consensual sex. Pregnancy is always a risk with sex - hardly surprising as it is the reason we have sex. Morally it doesn’t seem right that the foetus has to pay with its life for a lack of or failure of contraception.
All the arguments I’ve heard for abortion are self serving and seem to be derived to support a position already decided. As an example people rightly note that many foetuses die naturally in the womb (many before the woman knows she is pregnant). Yet that hardly supports abortion. Everyone is going to die at some point so using a similar argument would suggest murder is not a crime.
Although morally it seems that abortion is wrong, there are many other issues at play eg if abortion is not legal then many women will resort to illegal abortions with much higher risks. Abortion laws are also used to oppress and control women. Many anti abortionists also don’t seem that fussed about protecting foetuses when they turn into babies.
Overall I sort of accept that abortion laws are a necessity but I try not to think too hard about them, otherwise I get morally queasy.
I am massively pro choice. Always have been and still am despite my wife suffering several miscarriages on the journey to have our 2 girls. However, once pregnant we didn’t have any tests for downs etc as we decided nature should take its course. When my wife and I were trying for a baby we suffered a number of miscarriages. When we finally succeeded and watched our daughter’s progress via scans it was clear that our daughter was already alive, just not born yet. I realised that my previous position wasn’t consistent with what I saw and felt.
The experience made me reevaluate my views on abortion. Clearly a foetus is alive and abortion involves killing a living being. Morally there doesn’t seem any real difference between infanticide and abortion (I know that in India babies - particularly baby girls - are abandoned at birth and left to die).
A new life starts at conception. The mother and foetus are not the same.
I am not convinced by the “it’s my body” argument. The foetus is not part of the woman’s body. The vast majority of aborted foetuses were conceived through consensual sex. Pregnancy is always a risk with sex - hardly surprising as it is the reason we have sex. Morally it doesn’t seem right that the foetus has to pay with its life for a lack of or failure of contraception.
All the arguments I’ve heard for abortion are self serving and seem to be derived to support a position already decided. As an example people rightly note that many foetuses die naturally in the womb (many before the woman knows she is pregnant). Yet that hardly supports abortion. Everyone is going to die at some point so using a similar argument would suggest murder is not a crime.
Although morally it seems that abortion is wrong, there are many other issues at play eg if abortion is not legal then many women will resort to illegal abortions with much higher risks. Abortion laws are also used to oppress and control women. Many anti abortionists also don’t seem that fussed about protecting foetuses when they turn into babies.
Overall I sort of accept that abortion laws are a necessity but I try not to think too hard about them, otherwise I get morally queasy.
All I can conclude from my own experience is that it is an extremely complex subject and nobody can be deemed to be “right”.
Esceptico said:
Although morally it seems that abortion is wrong, there are many other issues at play eg if abortion is not legal then many women will resort to illegal abortions with much higher risks. Abortion laws are also used to oppress and control women. Many anti abortionists also don’t seem that fussed about protecting foetuses when they turn into babies.
Overall I sort of accept that abortion laws are a necessity but I try not to think too hard about them, otherwise I get morally queasy.
With the exception of your penultimate paragraph, I agree with your position although for slightly different reasons.Overall I sort of accept that abortion laws are a necessity but I try not to think too hard about them, otherwise I get morally queasy.
I don’t think it’s right to legalize something because if you don’t people will seek more dangerous illegal options if that path isn’t legal.
Edited by The Moose on Sunday 20th June 03:44
Esceptico said:
Good post.
I’m a believer in pro choice but pro choice at present should only be a choice in line with the current laws.If the people / government want abortion on demand for whatever reason then pass a law that says as much.
I find it difficult to believe that a quarter of a million plus abortions per year all passed the criteria of the 1967 Abortion Act.
I’ll take any criticism going and put my tin foil hat on here and say that’s why I’m very wary of any support for assisted suicide legislation.
wiggy001 said:
I am massively pro choice. Always have been and still am despite my wife suffering several miscarriages on the journey to have our 2 girls. However, once pregnant we didn’t have any tests for downs etc as we decided nature should take its course.
All I can conclude from my own experience is that it is an extremely complex subject and nobody can be deemed to be “right”.
I don’t think it is a matter of being “right”. People should however be consistent.All I can conclude from my own experience is that it is an extremely complex subject and nobody can be deemed to be “right”.
I am an atheist. Humans are evolved animals. Good and evil are human inventions and meaningless outside of human society. However, the underlying moral feelings we have are genetically imprinted eg love, guilt, compassion, empathy. These emotions have evolved in us and other social animals to allow us to live more effectively in groups.
As moral codes are a human invention then one code can’t be more “right” than any other code as there is no independent yardstick to judge them by. However a moral code should be internally consistent.
Most societies and moral codes don’t condone killing. I think all societies make exceptions eg war, self defence and capital punishment. Western societies generally don’t condone the killing of innocent parties and especially those that are too weak to protect themselves.
There could not be a more perfect example of an innocent party that needs protection than a foetus. It’s very existence, until born, is dependent upon its mother. Once born it will be dependent upon its mother or other humans for a number of years (at a minimum until it can move around and feed itself).
So western moral codes that say that the weak and innocent should be protected yet allow abortion are inconsistent. That is why those trying to defend abortion ethically soon find themselves tied up in knots, usually resorting to fudged definitions or nonsense eg defining what a person is in a convenient way such that foetuses fail the test.
I’m pro choice but I do respect other’s opinions.
I’ll throw something extra into the mix on this. For years, people in NI, and also the south of Ireland have travelled to the Uk for abortions. Their own political system didn’t allow them but didn’t prevent them happening elsewhere. “An Irish solution to an Irish problem” was one phrase. That meant it was also a bigger problem for those less well off.
In NI specifically it took Westminster to legislate for them. Many here consider it that our local cowards were happy to be overridden on the decision.
If I decide to argue the pro vs anti choice argument I’ll do it in a separate post. Right now I’m railing against weak politicians who like to use the subject as ammo.
ETA, many politicians are happy to turn a blind eye and make it someone else’s problem rather than confront a very contentious issue.
I’ll throw something extra into the mix on this. For years, people in NI, and also the south of Ireland have travelled to the Uk for abortions. Their own political system didn’t allow them but didn’t prevent them happening elsewhere. “An Irish solution to an Irish problem” was one phrase. That meant it was also a bigger problem for those less well off.
In NI specifically it took Westminster to legislate for them. Many here consider it that our local cowards were happy to be overridden on the decision.
If I decide to argue the pro vs anti choice argument I’ll do it in a separate post. Right now I’m railing against weak politicians who like to use the subject as ammo.
ETA, many politicians are happy to turn a blind eye and make it someone else’s problem rather than confront a very contentious issue.
Edited by roger.mellie on Sunday 20th June 05:47
Esceptico said:
I don’t think it is a matter of being “right”. People should however be consistent.
I am an atheist. Humans are evolved animals. Good and evil are human inventions and meaningless outside of human society. However, the underlying moral feelings we have are genetically imprinted eg love, guilt, compassion, empathy. These emotions have evolved in us and other social animals to allow us to live more effectively in groups.
As moral codes are a human invention then one code can’t be more “right” than any other code as there is no independent yardstick to judge them by. However a moral code should be internally consistent.
Most societies and moral codes don’t condone killing. I think all societies make exceptions eg war, self defence and capital punishment. Western societies generally don’t condone the killing of innocent parties and especially those that are too weak to protect themselves.
There could not be a more perfect example of an innocent party that needs protection than a foetus. It’s very existence, until born, is dependent upon its mother. Once born it will be dependent upon its mother or other humans for a number of years (at a minimum until it can move around and feed itself).
So western moral codes that say that the weak and innocent should be protected yet allow abortion are inconsistent. That is why those trying to defend abortion ethically soon find themselves tied up in knots, usually resorting to fudged definitions or nonsense eg defining what a person is in a convenient way such that foetuses fail the test.
You argue that moral codes are inventions but yet at the same time argue for moral absolutes. Yeah right.I am an atheist. Humans are evolved animals. Good and evil are human inventions and meaningless outside of human society. However, the underlying moral feelings we have are genetically imprinted eg love, guilt, compassion, empathy. These emotions have evolved in us and other social animals to allow us to live more effectively in groups.
As moral codes are a human invention then one code can’t be more “right” than any other code as there is no independent yardstick to judge them by. However a moral code should be internally consistent.
Most societies and moral codes don’t condone killing. I think all societies make exceptions eg war, self defence and capital punishment. Western societies generally don’t condone the killing of innocent parties and especially those that are too weak to protect themselves.
There could not be a more perfect example of an innocent party that needs protection than a foetus. It’s very existence, until born, is dependent upon its mother. Once born it will be dependent upon its mother or other humans for a number of years (at a minimum until it can move around and feed itself).
So western moral codes that say that the weak and innocent should be protected yet allow abortion are inconsistent. That is why those trying to defend abortion ethically soon find themselves tied up in knots, usually resorting to fudged definitions or nonsense eg defining what a person is in a convenient way such that foetuses fail the test.
It’s not that difficult. Do you respect a woman’s right to choice or not?
I don’t believe a foetus is a human being and I don’t think the potential changes that.
Your definition of killing shows that you may have shaken off some of your religious upbringing but not all of it. There is nothing inconsistent in respecting a woman’s right to choice unless you qualify it with relatively meaningless exemptions. I’ll poke, are there circumstances in which you consider abortion acceptable or never?
roger.mellie said:
You argue that moral codes are inventions but yet at the same time argue for moral absolutes. Yeah right.
It’s not that difficult. Do you respect a woman’s right to choice or not?
I don’t believe a foetus is a human being and I don’t think the potential changes that.
Your definition of killing shows that you may have shaken off some of your religious upbringing but not all of it. There is nothing inconsistent in respecting a woman’s right to choice unless you qualify it with relatively meaningless exemptions. I’ll poke, are there circumstances in which you consider abortion acceptable or never?
You are misrepresenting me. I don’t introduce moral absolutes, you did. I said that a moral code that says that the killing of the innocent and weak is wrong in some cases but not in others is inconsistent (and therefore not a very good moral code).It’s not that difficult. Do you respect a woman’s right to choice or not?
I don’t believe a foetus is a human being and I don’t think the potential changes that.
Your definition of killing shows that you may have shaken off some of your religious upbringing but not all of it. There is nothing inconsistent in respecting a woman’s right to choice unless you qualify it with relatively meaningless exemptions. I’ll poke, are there circumstances in which you consider abortion acceptable or never?
Why do you not consider a foetus a person? Just stating a position is not arguing for it.
I support a woman’s right over her body but the foetus is not part of her body.
craigjm said:
I think the UK laws are right and there is no need to change.
The worst thing about the situation in the US is the huge swathe of men that think they have the right to decide what a woman can do with her body and make choices on their behalf. If i was a woman I would like the right to decide what I do with my body without being criminalised or endangered for it. Religion has far too much of an impact on life and politics in the US
Fully agree, empowerment of women over their own reproductive system is not just ethically correct, but is also one of the only proven ways to reduce poverty globally. Whilst this is not a religious debate, it is often driven by religious men in a further attempt to control women on a pseudo moral basis. The worst thing about the situation in the US is the huge swathe of men that think they have the right to decide what a woman can do with her body and make choices on their behalf. If i was a woman I would like the right to decide what I do with my body without being criminalised or endangered for it. Religion has far too much of an impact on life and politics in the US
I often find it striking how the country that was founded to be secular and free from religious oppression is so often misled down such ignorant paths, yet the UK (which is a Christian country still) has become more and more secular and free thinking.
Esceptico said:
You are misrepresenting me. I don’t introduce moral absolutes, you did. I said that a moral code that says that the killing of the innocent and weak is wrong in some cases but not in others is inconsistent (and therefore not a very good moral code).
Why do you not consider a foetus a person? Just stating a position is not arguing for it.
I support a woman’s right over her body but the foetus is not part of her body.
Damn, I knew replying to you would take this OT. Why do you not consider a foetus a person? Just stating a position is not arguing for it.
I support a woman’s right over her body but the foetus is not part of her body.
Read your first sentence. Read the description of abortion as the “killing of the innocent” and tell me again about introducing moral absolutes.
Your argument is premised on personal morals, that’s fine and valid, just don’t confuse them with absolutes. Or worse expect your opinion to dictate a women’s right to personal choice.
roger.mellie said:
Damn, I knew replying to you would take this OT.
Read your first sentence. Read the description of abortion as the “killing of the innocent” and tell me again about introducing moral absolutes.
Your argument is premised on personal morals, that’s fine and valid, just don’t confuse them with absolutes. Or worse expect your opinion to dictate a women’s right to personal choice.
Why are you unable to understand or engage with the argument I am making? Read your first sentence. Read the description of abortion as the “killing of the innocent” and tell me again about introducing moral absolutes.
Your argument is premised on personal morals, that’s fine and valid, just don’t confuse them with absolutes. Or worse expect your opinion to dictate a women’s right to personal choice.
I am not arguing from my moral position. I am saying that the general moral position in the UK is that killing of innocent people is seen as morally wrong. Do you disagree and believe that as a society we do generally support the killing of innocent people? Mmmm…having said that there are a lot of people on NP&E that seem quite happy with killing people.
Why are you struggling with the word innocent? It is just the antonym of guilty. It can and has been argued that murderers deserve capital punishment or that soldiers deserve death or even that civilians of the country you are at war with are guilty in some way so that killing them is justifiable. However a foetus is clearly not guilty of having done anything wrong so is “innocent”.
You have conveniently decided to not treat foetuses as persons, thereby allowing them to be killed without bringing into question why it is okay kill innocent persons.
Although practically that is a convenient get out, as unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children are troublesome, it doesn’t seem to be consistent with the general moral position and stinks of hypocrisy.
Until recently, contraceptive pills weren't approved in Japan, so abortions were very common form of birth control, even amongst married couples.
Temples are full of little statues - as a way to saying 'sorry' to the soul that was in line to be re-incarnated, but now has to wait for the next baby off the rank.
Common law in England had the concept of "quickening" (around 18-20 weeks) before which feticide was not a crime. For example, a pregnant woman convicted of a capital offence after that date would have her execution delayed until the birth, but before that could be killed.
Balinese belief is that a baby isn't human until they are 40 days old (presumably a coping mechanism for high infant death rates)
I think the current UK laws are fine. Happy for Parliament to revisit the date now and again. It's a slippery slope to insist on full rights for foetus's - my wife suffered a number of miscarriages - would these count as manslaughter, that she was guilty of not protecting the innocent within her? She didn't mean to kill them
Temples are full of little statues - as a way to saying 'sorry' to the soul that was in line to be re-incarnated, but now has to wait for the next baby off the rank.
Common law in England had the concept of "quickening" (around 18-20 weeks) before which feticide was not a crime. For example, a pregnant woman convicted of a capital offence after that date would have her execution delayed until the birth, but before that could be killed.
Balinese belief is that a baby isn't human until they are 40 days old (presumably a coping mechanism for high infant death rates)
I think the current UK laws are fine. Happy for Parliament to revisit the date now and again. It's a slippery slope to insist on full rights for foetus's - my wife suffered a number of miscarriages - would these count as manslaughter, that she was guilty of not protecting the innocent within her? She didn't mean to kill them
Esceptico said:
Why are you unable to understand or engage with the argument I am making?
I am not arguing from my moral position. I am saying that the general moral position in the UK is that killing of innocent people is seen as morally wrong. Do you disagree and believe that as a society we do generally support the killing of innocent people? Mmmm…having said that there are a lot of people on NP&E that seem quite happy with killing people.
Why are you struggling with the word innocent? It is just the antonym of guilty. It can and has been argued that murderers deserve capital punishment or that soldiers deserve death or even that civilians of the country you are at war with are guilty in some way so that killing them is justifiable. However a foetus is clearly not guilty of having done anything wrong so is “innocent”.
You have conveniently decided to not treat foetuses as persons, thereby allowing them to be killed without bringing into question why it is okay kill innocent persons.
Although practically that is a convenient get out, as unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children are troublesome, it doesn’t seem to be consistent with the general moral position and stinks of hypocrisy.
I’m perfectly able to engage. Just not on your terms amigo.I am not arguing from my moral position. I am saying that the general moral position in the UK is that killing of innocent people is seen as morally wrong. Do you disagree and believe that as a society we do generally support the killing of innocent people? Mmmm…having said that there are a lot of people on NP&E that seem quite happy with killing people.
Why are you struggling with the word innocent? It is just the antonym of guilty. It can and has been argued that murderers deserve capital punishment or that soldiers deserve death or even that civilians of the country you are at war with are guilty in some way so that killing them is justifiable. However a foetus is clearly not guilty of having done anything wrong so is “innocent”.
You have conveniently decided to not treat foetuses as persons, thereby allowing them to be killed without bringing into question why it is okay kill innocent persons.
Although practically that is a convenient get out, as unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children are troublesome, it doesn’t seem to be consistent with the general moral position and stinks of hypocrisy.
You are arguing for your moral position. I’m not sure if you’re ignorant of that point or being deliberately obtuse.
No one is arguing that killing innocent people is wrong. You’re trying to twist that into arguing that aborting a pregnancy is equivalent to murder. I’ll be polite and say that I disagree strongly.
Your definition of a foetus as a person is a moral judgment, not one backed by any medical facts. Your moral hypocrisy in thinking that it’s just about unwanted children reveals more than you think.
I had the agonising task 4 years ago of giving approval to the abortion of my unborn child. It was an ectopic pregnancy. My partner said she'd prefer to die than go through with an abortion, so I had to intervene.
Even under the circumstances it felt like murder. The NHS were so nonchalant about it. Like we were having a skin tag removed or something.
Even under the circumstances it felt like murder. The NHS were so nonchalant about it. Like we were having a skin tag removed or something.
skyrover said:
Putting any religious strawman aside, as far as i'm concerned it's murder.
Either life is life or it's not.
So any move to reduce the amount of abortions in this country is a step forward IMO.
There isn't a common definition of death/ life anyway. In the West most countries use brainstem function, however others use heart function. Which screws up transplants, as by the time you wait for the heart to die, most of the other organs are also useless.Either life is life or it's not.
So any move to reduce the amount of abortions in this country is a step forward IMO.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff