UK Abortion Law
Discussion
Esceptico said:
wisbech said:
No - the vast majority of abortions are not elective. 10-20% (depending on age of mother) of known pregnancies abort - we call them miscarriages - and it is thought in total 30-40% of conceptions abort - many fail to implant in the womb lining in the first place.
Why are you conflating abortion with miscarriages or failure to implant? They are nothing like each other. A miscarriage or failure to implant is a failed pregnancy. An abortion is a deliberate, conscious ending of a pregnancy. Logically, if embryos are persons, should there be inquests into why a natural abortion occurred?
DanL said:
I see what you’re saying, but it’s not the same. In your rope analogy, the child is already alive outside of the mother, already has independent life that would continue without assistance if they hadn’t been placed in jeopardy.
I’m aware I’m now criticising the analogy, which isn’t a great argument as it leads to comparing more and more extreme straw men.
What I take from your analogy is that your stance is life begins at conception, and should be allowed to continue from that point. It’s a fair, moral, position that I wouldn’t want to disagree with - your morals are very much your own (as is your body!).
However, should you have the right to impose your moral outlook on others? You are free to disagree and disapprove of others choices, but not (I contend) to take those choices away from them.
Now, you’re also not saying you want to take those choices away, but we’re kind of debating the end point of a discussion around abortion laws…
It is pretty clear that life starts at conception (given any reasonable, scientific definition of life). Some definitions of legal person or human with rights don’t start at conception. The former is biology the latter is politics.I’m aware I’m now criticising the analogy, which isn’t a great argument as it leads to comparing more and more extreme straw men.
What I take from your analogy is that your stance is life begins at conception, and should be allowed to continue from that point. It’s a fair, moral, position that I wouldn’t want to disagree with - your morals are very much your own (as is your body!
).However, should you have the right to impose your moral outlook on others? You are free to disagree and disapprove of others choices, but not (I contend) to take those choices away from them.
Now, you’re also not saying you want to take those choices away, but we’re kind of debating the end point of a discussion around abortion laws…
Edited by DanL on Sunday 20th June 09:39
The central dispute in the abortion debate is when human rights should begin. Anti abortionists generally take the view that not only life but also full human rights should exist from conception. So abortion is the killing of unborn humans. From that viewpoint it is pro abortionists that are imposing not just their moral views on unborn humans but killing them too.
Humans are not very moral creatures though. We have been slaughtering each other for millennia. We do write lovely stories and poetry, full of gallant and noble feelings. But when push comes to shove we treat those not within our community pretty badly as a history full of rape, pillage and genocide illustrates.
Although we often behave pretty badly we like to think of ourselves as good. Hence all the faux justifications for abortion, which is really just a practical solution to a problem (unwanted or unplanned pregnancy).
Other animals are not shy in abandoning or killing unwanted offspring. I was reading recently of a species (but now can’t recall which) that can absorb growing foetuses ie self abortion if they are put under stress such as lack of food. That makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.
wisbech said:
An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy - it can be induced or ‘natural’. So a miscarriage is a type of abortion.
Logically, if embryos are persons, should there be inquests into why a natural abortion occurred?
Context is everything. When people discuss abortion in the context of pro abs anti abortion, no one is talking about being pro or anti natural abortions. So what point exactly where you trying to make? Logically, if embryos are persons, should there be inquests into why a natural abortion occurred?
There may be many reasons why people undergo an elective abortion but miscarriages and failed implantations don’t seem relevant.
I believe in some countries where abortions are not allowed that there can be investigations if it is suspected that the death of the foetus was not natural. I believe women have been prosecuted in the US. So it is not just a logical extension of the argument. I am not defending such an approach, just pointing out it already exists.
InitialDave said:
If life starts at conception, does the American policy of citizenship for those born in the USA need to be extended to those conceived in the USA?
I like this logical play!Won't t wash, but I like it.
That said my wife has a US citizenship. It's more trouble than it's worth, these days. We got them for our daughters, but fully expect that by the ti E they are adults they will opt out.
Interestingly, two of the major reasons my wife does not want us to move to her country of birth are fun laws/incidents, and abortion laws/deprioritisation of womens' rights in this area.
The other is race attitudes - she is white, I am not, and London is just a better place to be for that situation than much of the US. But that's another thread entirely.
As a secular woman, she finds the religious co-opting of the abortion debate in the US frightening.
Edited by Harry Flashman on Sunday 20th June 13:06
Esceptico said:
It is pretty clear that life starts at conception (given any reasonable, scientific definition of life). Some definitions of legal person or human with rights don’t start at conception. The former is biology the latter is politic
Stop saying that like it’s an indisputable fact. It isn’t and most of the rest of your argument immediately falls apart if you base it on that assumption.It’s very disputable and not worth my time arguing with someone who won’t listen anyway.
Esceptico said:
The central dispute in the abortion debate is when human rights should begin. Anti abortionists generally take the view that not only life but also full human rights should exist from conception. So abortion is the killing of unborn humans. From that viewpoint it is pro abortionists that are imposing not just their moral views on unborn humans but killing them too.
Humans are not very moral creatures though. We have been slaughtering each other for millennia. We do write lovely stories and poetry, full of gallant and noble feelings. But when push comes to shove we treat those not within our community pretty badly as a history full of rape, pillage and genocide illustrates.
Although we often behave pretty badly we like to think of ourselves as good. Hence all the faux justifications for abortion, which is really just a practical solution to a problem (unwanted or unplanned pregnancy).
Other animals are not shy in abandoning or killing unwanted offspring. I was reading recently of a species (but now can’t recall which) that can absorb growing foetuses ie self abortion if they are put under stress such as lack of food. That makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.
Humans are not very moral creatures though. We have been slaughtering each other for millennia. We do write lovely stories and poetry, full of gallant and noble feelings. But when push comes to shove we treat those not within our community pretty badly as a history full of rape, pillage and genocide illustrates.
Although we often behave pretty badly we like to think of ourselves as good. Hence all the faux justifications for abortion, which is really just a practical solution to a problem (unwanted or unplanned pregnancy).
Other animals are not shy in abandoning or killing unwanted offspring. I was reading recently of a species (but now can’t recall which) that can absorb growing foetuses ie self abortion if they are put under stress such as lack of food. That makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.
Esceptico said:
It is pretty clear that life starts at conception (given any reasonable, scientific definition of life). Some definitions of legal person or human with rights don’t start at conception. The former is biology the latter is politics.
The central dispute in the abortion debate is when human rights should begin. Anti abortionists generally take the view that not only life but also full human rights should exist from conception. So abortion is the killing of unborn humans. From that viewpoint it is pro abortionists that are imposing not just their moral views on unborn humans but killing them too.
Humans are not very moral creatures though. We have been slaughtering each other for millennia. We do write lovely stories and poetry, full of gallant and noble feelings. But when push comes to shove we treat those not within our community pretty badly as a history full of rape, pillage and genocide illustrates.
Although we often behave pretty badly we like to think of ourselves as good. Hence all the faux justifications for abortion, which is really just a practical solution to a problem (unwanted or unplanned pregnancy).
Other animals are not shy in abandoning or killing unwanted offspring. I was reading recently of a species (but now can’t recall which) that can absorb growing foetuses ie self abortion if they are put under stress such as lack of food. That makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.
The definition of life is not set in stone and the generally agreed one is that it is self-sustaining. A zygote cannot sustain itself. In the same way that viruses cannot sustain themselves. The central dispute in the abortion debate is when human rights should begin. Anti abortionists generally take the view that not only life but also full human rights should exist from conception. So abortion is the killing of unborn humans. From that viewpoint it is pro abortionists that are imposing not just their moral views on unborn humans but killing them too.
Humans are not very moral creatures though. We have been slaughtering each other for millennia. We do write lovely stories and poetry, full of gallant and noble feelings. But when push comes to shove we treat those not within our community pretty badly as a history full of rape, pillage and genocide illustrates.
Although we often behave pretty badly we like to think of ourselves as good. Hence all the faux justifications for abortion, which is really just a practical solution to a problem (unwanted or unplanned pregnancy).
Other animals are not shy in abandoning or killing unwanted offspring. I was reading recently of a species (but now can’t recall which) that can absorb growing foetuses ie self abortion if they are put under stress such as lack of food. That makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.
Just by saying it is clear that life starts at conception doesn't make it so. Did you consider that your view is biased by emotion of a significant event. Not because of logic.
Harry Flashman said:
I like this logical play!
Won't t wash, but I like it.
That said my wife has a US citizenship. It's more trouble than it's worth, these days. We got them for our daughters, but fully expect that by the ti E they are adults they will opt out.
Interestingly, two of the major reasons my wife does not want us to move to her country of birth are fun laws/incidents, and abortion laws/deprioritisation of womens' rights in this area.
The other is race attitudes - she is white, I am not, and London is just a better place to be for that situation than much of the US. But that's another thread entirely.
As a secular woman, she finds the religious co-opting of the abortion debate in the US frightening.
You got there while I was typing. Won't t wash, but I like it.
That said my wife has a US citizenship. It's more trouble than it's worth, these days. We got them for our daughters, but fully expect that by the ti E they are adults they will opt out.
Interestingly, two of the major reasons my wife does not want us to move to her country of birth are fun laws/incidents, and abortion laws/deprioritisation of womens' rights in this area.
The other is race attitudes - she is white, I am not, and London is just a better place to be for that situation than much of the US. But that's another thread entirely.
As a secular woman, she finds the religious co-opting of the abortion debate in the US frightening.
Edited by Harry Flashman on Sunday 20th June 13:06
I’ve family in the US and gave serious consideration to moving there when I was younger. I’m very glad I didn’t but still love the country as the raving nutters we see on the news aren’t representative. But the political partisanship is unfortunately a taste of what to expect here.
roger.mellie said:
Harry Flashman said:
I like this logical play!
Won't t wash, but I like it.
That said my wife has a US citizenship. It's more trouble than it's worth, these days. We got them for our daughters, but fully expect that by the ti E they are adults they will opt out.
Interestingly, two of the major reasons my wife does not want us to move to her country of birth are fun laws/incidents, and abortion laws/deprioritisation of womens' rights in this area.
The other is race attitudes - she is white, I am not, and London is just a better place to be for that situation than much of the US. But that's another thread entirely.
As a secular woman, she finds the religious co-opting of the abortion debate in the US frightening.
You got there while I was typing. Won't t wash, but I like it.
That said my wife has a US citizenship. It's more trouble than it's worth, these days. We got them for our daughters, but fully expect that by the ti E they are adults they will opt out.
Interestingly, two of the major reasons my wife does not want us to move to her country of birth are fun laws/incidents, and abortion laws/deprioritisation of womens' rights in this area.
The other is race attitudes - she is white, I am not, and London is just a better place to be for that situation than much of the US. But that's another thread entirely.
As a secular woman, she finds the religious co-opting of the abortion debate in the US frightening.
Edited by Harry Flashman on Sunday 20th June 13:06
I’ve family in the US and gave serious consideration to moving there when I was younger. I’m very glad I didn’t but still love the country as the raving nutters we see on the news aren’t representative. But the political partisanship is unfortunately a taste of what to expect here.
Johnnytheboy said:
Isn't it odd that this is such a meh issue in the UK for most people and yet absolutely massive in the US?
It's also very odd that the GoP is vociferously in favour of the government taking agency away from the individual on this matter when they're so keen on individual agency on more or less every other matter. It's almost like they're massive hypocrites.skyrover said:
rscott said:
It's the hypocrisy of many of the anti abortion campaigners in the US, who proclaim every foetus is a life worth saving, yet are completely against any form of assisted healthcare or financial support for the child once it's been born.
Personal responsibility?Edited by hidetheelephants on Sunday 20th June 14:26
Esceptico said:
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.
You claim to be an atheist, and I'm sure you are. But that doesn't mean you haven't had your thought processes infected with religious claptrap. The above is exactly the kind of rubbish the Catholic church and many other religions spout, and it's just a barefaced lie. Procreation is NOT the main reason we have sex, not even the primary reason. Humans are one of the 5 great apes, and all of them primarily engage in sexual intercourse for social reasons, to bond couples or groups together. Do some research on the life of the Bonobo ape if you don't believe it. That's part of our evolution. And we're not alone, and many of the more intelligent marine mammals do the same. The vast majority of sex is for social reasons rather than reasons of procreation. Ask yourself, why do women want to have sex during times of the month when they are not fertile, or when they are pregnant, or post menopause? And why do men find those women sexually attractive?
You won't find a female cat having sex unless she is ovulating or ready to ovulate, and a male cat will only be interested in a fertile female.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Sunday 20th June 15:15
roger.mellie said:
Esceptico said:
It is pretty clear that life starts at conception (given any reasonable, scientific definition of life). Some definitions of legal person or human with rights don’t start at conception. The former is biology the latter is politic
Stop saying that like it’s an indisputable fact. It isn’t and most of the rest of your argument immediately falls apart if you base it on that assumption.The other issue with the "life begins at conception" view is that it gets you into a load of hot water when it comes to IVF, stored embryos etc. What's their status? Most embryos stored for IVF will never be used, so what about their rights. Embryos are created after mum has had her eggs extracted and dad has provided a sperm sample, yet neither are there at the time. At the point of conception, the parents are on their way home from hospital on the tube, or already at home. What if they don't wish to proceed, suddenly can't afford it, die in an accident before implantation?
You get into a legal quagmire believing that those embryos, a clutch of maybe 4 or 8 cells, are actually human beings.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Sunday 20th June 15:40
skyrover said:
rscott said:
It's the hypocrisy of many of the anti abortion campaigners in the US, who proclaim every foetus is a life worth saving, yet are completely against any form of assisted healthcare or financial support for the child once it's been born.
Personal responsibility?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Agreed. A one day old clutch of cells, that will eventually grow into a new human, is a far less sophisticated lifeform than an established cancerous tumour, which we wouldn't hesitate to cut out.
The other issue with the "life begins at conception" view is that it gets you into a load of hot water when it comes to IVF, stored embryos etc. What's their status? Most embryos stored for IVF will never be used, so what about their rights. Embryos are created after mum has had her eggs extracted and dad has provided a sperm sample, yet neither are there at the time. At the point of conception, the parents are on their way home from hospital on the tube, or already at home. What if they don't wish to proceed, suddenly can't afford it, die in an accident before implantation?
You get into a legal quagmire believing that those embryos, a clutch of maybe 4 or 8 cells, are actually human beings.
You're correct and this is handled in law by the "Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990" Ianal... But it's my understanding that this act in 1990 was debated and passed in conjunction with the amendments to the abortion laws in that year. The other issue with the "life begins at conception" view is that it gets you into a load of hot water when it comes to IVF, stored embryos etc. What's their status? Most embryos stored for IVF will never be used, so what about their rights. Embryos are created after mum has had her eggs extracted and dad has provided a sperm sample, yet neither are there at the time. At the point of conception, the parents are on their way home from hospital on the tube, or already at home. What if they don't wish to proceed, suddenly can't afford it, die in an accident before implantation?
You get into a legal quagmire believing that those embryos, a clutch of maybe 4 or 8 cells, are actually human beings.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Sunday 20th June 15:40
It's a scary thought to those of us in middle age but 1990 was 31 years ago and I think it's fair to say that medical technology, cultural understandings and people's opinion could have changed significantly since then.
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.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
roger.mellie said:
Esceptico said:
It is pretty clear that life starts at conception (given any reasonable, scientific definition of life). Some definitions of legal person or human with rights don’t start at conception. The former is biology the latter is politic
Stop saying that like it’s an indisputable fact. It isn’t and most of the rest of your argument immediately falls apart if you base it on that assumption.There is essentially no scientific consensus on when a foetus becomes "alive"; in part because the very concept of "life" is vague, subjective and ill defined. That's why terms such as "organism" are used instead.
kowalski655 said:
Well,on one point, I don't think we need to fear following the lead of certain backwards American states. Their laws (even if allowed to stand on appeal) are being driven by bat s
t crazy right wing evangelicals, and thankfully we have very few of those....so far!
Thankfully we're nothing like the US in this instance. t crazy right wing evangelicals, and thankfully we have very few of those....so far!They're a massive bunch of religious zealots.
There's nothing wrong with the laws in this country WRT abortion, one of the things we've got just about right IMO.
Esceptico said:
roger.mellie said:
I’m perfectly able to engage. Just not on your terms amigo.
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.
Any discussion about abortion will throw up oft repeated fallacies. 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.
Medical practitioners cannot tell you what a “person” is. The definition of “person” is done by society. In the past non white, Jews and gypsies (amongst others) have not been treated as persons. Medical “evidence” was used to support such treatment.
A new life comes into existence at conception. The unique genetic information that will largely determine how that new life grows is set at that time (and certainly by the time the pregnancy is detectable). That new life will continue until death, whether that is in the womb or a hundred years after birth.
The most obvious and natural time to treat a person as coming into being is conception.
When I look at my dog I don’t wonder when he became a dog. It seems clear to me he became a dog at conception and he is still one now.
If you are stating that humans are special so that we have to a special distinction between people and non people you need to provide the argument and evidence for it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff