UK Abortion Law
Discussion
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?
Texas is f
ked up. Falling over themselves to defend citizens from the tyranny of mandated mask wearing while at the same time forcing you to have your rapists child.
I suspose it's consistent as if they don't care about maternal mortality during childbirth they're not going to sniff at the riskbof Covid killing you.
Re: Christianity, it seems to me in many towns it's more about control and social status than any tortured philosophical belief drawn from the life and teachings of Jesus. They love a good ol' execution in Texas too.
ked up. Falling over themselves to defend citizens from the tyranny of mandated mask wearing while at the same time forcing you to have your rapists child.I suspose it's consistent as if they don't care about maternal mortality during childbirth they're not going to sniff at the riskbof Covid killing you.
Re: Christianity, it seems to me in many towns it's more about control and social status than any tortured philosophical belief drawn from the life and teachings of Jesus. They love a good ol' execution in Texas too.
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.
Hyperbolic nonsense, this thread was started in good faith to discuss the legality of abortion. 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.
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.
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.
Forcing women to have an unwanted child, particularly somewhere which is so hostile to supporting or funding the care of that child, very solidly fits into "to the detriment of others or wider society".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.
The push to restrict abortion as much as possible is absolutely nothing to do with the life of a potential child, if it were, they'd actually do something to make sure said child can have a good life.
It's about trying to enforce a certain viewpoint on how people should live their lives, an attitude that you shouldn't be having sex unless you're married and able to support a child, and that not meeting any part of this metric (sex outside of marriage, pregnancy outside of marriage, lacking the resources to support a child etc etc) is a direct moral failing on your part.
InitialDave 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.
Forcing women to have an unwanted child, particularly somewhere which is so hostile to supporting or funding the care of that child, very solidly fits into "to the detriment of others or wider society".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.
The push to restrict abortion as much as possible is absolutely nothing to do with the life of a potential child, if it were, they'd actually do something to make sure said child can have a good life.
It's about trying to enforce a certain viewpoint on how people should live their lives, an attitude that you shouldn't be having sex unless you're married and able to support a child, and that not meeting any part of this metric (sex outside of marriage, pregnancy outside of marriage, lacking the resources to support a child etc etc) is a direct moral failing on your part.
But I suspect it's not quite as clear cut as your attempting to make it... I find myself quoting this line more and more these days "Tyrrany is the deliberate removal of nuance" - Albert Maysles
This argument is much more nuanced, I have no religious or theological affiliation what so ever and I am quite troubled by the current UK abortion law for the arguments I've laid out previously in this thread. (Fwiw I also think the new Texas situation is bat s
t)Those of us who have the ability/privilege/time to take a dispassionate and thoughtful view of this subject shouldn't be trying to frame it in the most extremists terms of those that don't have that privilege and need to, for whatever reason, cling to the extreme positions.
Morality is a floating vessel that moves over time and in response to circumstances and environmental changes. I'm sick of good thoughtful human enquiry being shouted down by bigoted extremism.
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.
Fascinating passive aggressive attempt to shut down discussion.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.
Everyone has the right to control their body when it has no detrimental effect on others or society. Currently in the UK that's up to 24 weeks post conception, or beyond if the risk to the mother or baby is high. Which seems about right IMO.
Legal abortion is preferable to illegal abortion or obliging women to risk their health carrying an unwanted child to term.
BobsPigeon said:
I've no doubt the political debate around this is US states like Texas contains a large amount or puritanical rhetoric from certain sections and I have to admit Texan politics and Texan socials attitudes are not high on the interest of a skinny lad from Lancashire, although I do remember my Mum letting me stay up late to watch Dallas every now and again and listen to the odd Joe Rogan podcast here and there.
But I suspect it's not quite as clear cut as your attempting to make it... I find myself quoting this line more and more these days "Tyrrany is the deliberate removal of nuance" - Albert Maysles
This argument is much more nuanced, I have no religious or theological affiliation what so ever and I am quite troubled by the current UK abortion law for the arguments I've laid out previously in this thread. (Fwiw I also think the new Texas situation is bat st)
Those of us who have the ability/privilege/time to take a dispassionate and thoughtful view of this subject shouldn't be trying to frame it in the most extremists terms of those that don't have that privilege and need to, for whatever reason, cling to the extreme positions.
Morality is a floating vessel that moves over time and in response to circumstances and environmental changes. I'm sick of good thoughtful human enquiry being shouted down by bigoted extremism.
Odd post for someone who's framing this in black and white terms...But I suspect it's not quite as clear cut as your attempting to make it... I find myself quoting this line more and more these days "Tyrrany is the deliberate removal of nuance" - Albert Maysles
This argument is much more nuanced, I have no religious or theological affiliation what so ever and I am quite troubled by the current UK abortion law for the arguments I've laid out previously in this thread. (Fwiw I also think the new Texas situation is bat s
t)Those of us who have the ability/privilege/time to take a dispassionate and thoughtful view of this subject shouldn't be trying to frame it in the most extremists terms of those that don't have that privilege and need to, for whatever reason, cling to the extreme positions.
Morality is a floating vessel that moves over time and in response to circumstances and environmental changes. I'm sick of good thoughtful human enquiry being shouted down by bigoted extremism.
Bill 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.
Fascinating passive aggressive attempt to shut down discussion.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.
Everyone has the right to control their body when it has no detrimental effect on others or society. Currently in the UK that's up to 24 weeks post conception, or beyond if the risk to the mother or baby is high. Which seems about right IMO.
Legal abortion is preferable to illegal abortion or obliging women to risk their health carrying an unwanted child to term.
The post 24 week abortions that take place are argued on grounds of medical ethics as much as law, doctors make clinical calls day in day out about where the risks and rewards of medical interventions lie and I'm more than happy to let that continue, I have much more faith in their integrity than I would of law makers and politicians.
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.
Your argument if taken at face value implies that abortion is acceptable right up to the moment of birth.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.
Is that your position? If not then you agree that society has a right to draw a line somewhere before birth, and that the argument is then about where the line should be drawn.
BobsPigeon said:
Ok, fair enough, but the 24 weeks is an arbitrary point, I'm not arguing for 6 weeks or 12 weeks but given changing medical technology and social attitudes to healthcare and disability 24 weeks can easily be argued as too late. To dismiss that argument is in itself unreasonable and becomes rhetorical very quickly.
What argument? You haven't made any reasoned explanation as to why 24 weeks is too late, merely tried to claim the moral high ground to shut others down.How many births at 24 weeks happen, what proportion survive? And what proportion of those have some form of disability?
And then how many abortions are carried out in the UK between, say, 20&24 weeks gestation?
ETA I suspect (I've not looked because I'm not massively bothered either way) you're quibbling over a tiny number of abortions.
What would be your cut off?
Northernboy said:
Your argument if taken at face value implies that abortion is acceptable right up to the moment of birth.
Is that your position? If not then you agree that society has a right to draw a line somewhere before birth, and that the argument is then about where the line should be drawn.
From a deeply philosophical position, why does birth make the difference?Is that your position? If not then you agree that society has a right to draw a line somewhere before birth, and that the argument is then about where the line should be drawn.
Bill said:
BobsPigeon said:
Ok, fair enough, but the 24 weeks is an arbitrary point, I'm not arguing for 6 weeks or 12 weeks but given changing medical technology and social attitudes to healthcare and disability 24 weeks can easily be argued as too late. To dismiss that argument is in itself unreasonable and becomes rhetorical very quickly.
What argument? You haven't made any reasoned explanation as to why 24 weeks is too late, merely tried to claim the moral high ground to shut others down.How many births at 24 weeks happen, what proportion survive? And what proportion of those have some form of disability?
And then how many abortions are carried out in the UK between, say, 20&24 weeks gestation?
Its true that few abortions in the UK occur post 20 weeks, it's something like 90% occur before week 13... But there is still a few thousand every year post 18 weeks.
Like I said, attitudes to disability are changing, you're just going to have to accept that and you need to accept that modern medicine means people born very premature, around 24 weeks, can be considered as viable human life.
I haven't claimed any moral high ground I'm attempting to discuss the failing of the 1967 abortion act, which seems outdated to me.
Evanivitch said:
From a deeply philosophical position, why does birth make the difference?
It doesn’t, but as human morals tend to be a relatively simple mix of utilitarianism and a system of virtues I’m pretty certain that the poster I was responding to would draw the line before birth.Your position on inconsistencies in the argument throws up some questions on your stance too of course, from a philosophical viewpoint. Active or passive actions “should” be morally identical; pushing the fat man iff the bridge in the trolley problem should be no different to pushing a lever, but it is, people view it differently.
Your view seems to suggest that it’s OK to stop a live birth by using a condom, but not by having an abortion. On an outcomes based system why the difference?
It’s one of the areas where the anti-abortion argument in the US is shown to be tendentious; if the life of a blastocyst really is the moral equivalent of a child then why is there not a massive campaign for research into stopping spontaneous abortions / miscarriages?
No position in this discussion is actually consistent. I don’t think that they can be.
Esceptico said:
The fact that an embryo or foetus isn’t conscious only means it won’t notice that it has been killed.
The same as a stalk of corn then, or an aphid?We do make different decisions based on levels of consciousness and self-awareness, and I can’t see why it’s unreasonable to do so.
It’s the same reason that we’ll accept turning off the life support of a brain-dead adult. That’s also a choice to “abort” them but one which many people think is acceptable (me included.)
BobsPigeon said:
We're clearly having the argument.
Its true that few abortions in the UK occur post 20 weeks, it's something like 90% occur before week 13... But there is still a few thousand every year post 18 weeks.
Like I said, attitudes to disability are changing, you're just going to have to accept that and you need to accept that modern medicine means people born very premature, around 24 weeks, can be considered as viable human life.
I haven't claimed any moral high ground I'm attempting to discuss the failing of the 1967 abortion act, which seems outdated to me.
I'm unclear about your argument. Are you just arguing about dates? If so, then there are lots of agruments to be put on both sides. Its true that few abortions in the UK occur post 20 weeks, it's something like 90% occur before week 13... But there is still a few thousand every year post 18 weeks.
Like I said, attitudes to disability are changing, you're just going to have to accept that and you need to accept that modern medicine means people born very premature, around 24 weeks, can be considered as viable human life.
I haven't claimed any moral high ground I'm attempting to discuss the failing of the 1967 abortion act, which seems outdated to me.
I have some personal experience of premature births. 28 weeks. That the child was viable was something of a tribute to modern medical science and, perhaps patricularly, the current care situation in the neo-natal NHS ICU wards. Staff struggle to cope with the needs of a child born at 28 weeks, when most of the development has been completed.
Do what I have done and read up on likely problems from 28 weeks. It's scary stuff. It has kept me awake. God knows what it does to parents. Check out AOP. And it happens, day after day, and sometimes beyond the 'full term' time. Look up possible long-term problems. Then come back and discuss where the cut-off date should be.
Just the timing, however, is not how your posts come over. You appear to be suggesting that abortion is wrong. If that is your argument, then I suggest you don't have one. But you should keep your nose out of other people's business.
You go on thinking about abortions, despite the fact that you can't have one, and leave such decisions to those who have some ideas of viability.
Northernboy said:
Your view seems to suggest that it’s OK to stop a live birth by using a condom, but not by having an abortion. On an outcomes based system why the difference?
Quite the opposite actually.We question the validity of a premature birth because of the amount of (medical) intervention that may be required to enable that person to have a suitable quality of life. The earlier the birth, the greater the risk of long term suffering, the greater the medical interventions required.
But no human baby is born independent. They all require intervention for warmth, food, hygiene etc All children born in the UK have vaccinations, the majority will see a doctor for medication at some point in their first few years etc.
It's why many refer to the first 3 months after birth as the 4th trimester.
BobsPigeon said:
Like I said, attitudes to disability are changing, you're just going to have to accept that and you need to accept that modern medicine means people born very premature, around 24 weeks, can be considered as viable human life.
So the 23 week and six day cut off is spot on.(I'm confused as to what you think I don't accept...)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff