Termination of Pregnancy Discussion

[FoxesDeb]

Following up from the thread which went slightly off on a tangent, hopefully we can discuss abortion here instead. 

 

My opinion is that it should always be the woman's choice, and that as science tells us a foetus is not viable until it is able to survive outside of the womb, at around 22 weeks, my opinion is that termination should be available at least until then, with a caveat that after that time each individual case should be judged on its own merits. 

 

With regards to the US ruling on it, my feelings are well known I think, I see it as a backwards step which is wholly unsurprising for a backwards thinking country. 

[leicsmac]

 

"Here’s the thing.

 

It doesn’t matter when life begins.

 

It doesn’t matter whether a fetus is a human being or not.

 

That entire argument is a red herring, a distraction, a subjective and unwinnable argument that could not matter less.

 

It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about a fertilized egg, or a fetus, or a baby, or a five year old, or a Nobel Prize winning paediatric oncologist.

 

NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life, or the life of another person.

 

That’s it.

 

That’s the argument.

 

You cannot be forced to donate blood, or marrow, or organs, even though thousands die every year, on waiting lists.

 

They cannot even harvest your organs after your death without your explicit, written, pre-mortem permission.

 

Denying women the right to abortion means women have less bodily autonomy than a corpse."

 

As far as I'm concerned, this argument stands by itself in practically every regard.

[Finnegan]

 

I know it's lazy but I can't deliver my opinion any better than he did. 

 

Edited 26 June 2022 by Finnegan

[RoboFox]

Regressive and barbaric. 

 

The Christian right wing rules America and it's always going to be a broken country as a result.

[Unabomber]

Who made the decision to ban it? Also I’ve seen certain states say that it is still legal in their state? 

[FoxesDeb]

BBC News - Roe v Wade: US firms pledge to pay staff travel expenses for abortions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61941591

[The Horse's Mouth]

11 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Who made the decision to ban it? Also I’ve seen certain states say that it is still legal in their state? 

It will most likely be legal state wide aside from strong redwall states where pro life is the vastly supported opinion

[Finnegan]

8 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Who made the decision to ban it? Also I’ve seen certain states say that it is still legal in their state? 

 

So it wasn't strictly a decision to ban it. 

 

The problem is basically that there's never been a law on a federal level to make it legal nationwide. 

 

In a very simplified nutshell: someone took a case all the way to the supreme court stating that their state couldn't stop them having an abortion because a constitution guaranteed their right to privacy ensured the state couldn't interfere. This was Roe vs Wade. 

 

After they won, this essentially became established legal precedent. No president since Roe vs Wade has ever bothered to actual commit it to federal law, mostly because - quite frankly - they never fully had the bollocks because they know how divisive an issue it is in a country with so many religious fundamentalist nut jobs. 

 

So they got complacent, hoped Roe vs Wade would never be reversed and left it alone. 

 

Then Donald Trump chucked a couple more, essentially, American Taliban on the Supreme Court with some quite frankly scary religious views and now hardcore conservatives have a majority. So they used that to reverse that precedent and now individual states can go back to setting their own laws. 

 

So now the ball is in Biden and the Democrats court, especially given that one of the Justices on the Supreme Court has basically thrown down the gauntlet and said that same sex marriage, gay sex and freedom to contraceptives should be the next thing they target. 

 

Biden has said that the issue "shouldn't stop there" but he's the fvcking president. Get out there and start pushing federal law to actually fully legalise abortion, same sex marriage, gay sex and freedom to contraceptives nation wide the explicit new actual laws. 

[Unabomber]

16 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

So it wasn't strictly a decision to ban it. 

 

The problem is basically that there's never been a law on a federal level to make it legal nationwide. 

 

In a very simplified nutshell: someone took a case all the way to the supreme court stating that their state couldn't stop them having an abortion because a constitution guaranteed their right to privacy ensured the state couldn't interfere. This was Roe vs Wade. 

 

After they won, this essentially became established legal precedent. No president since Roe vs Wade has ever bothered to actual commit it to federal law, mostly because - quite frankly - they never fully had the bollocks because they know how divisive an issue it is in a country with so many religious fundamentalist nut jobs. 

 

So they got complacent, hoped Roe vs Wade would never be reversed and left it alone. 

 

Then Donald Trump chucked a couple more, essentially, American Taliban on the Supreme Court with some quite frankly scary religious views and now hardcore conservatives have a majority. So they used that to reverse that precedent and now individual states can go back to setting their own laws. 

 

So now the ball is in Biden and the Democrats court, especially given that one of the Justices on the Supreme Court has basically thrown down the gauntlet and said that same sex marriage, gay sex and freedom to contraceptives should be the next thing they target. 

 

Biden has said that the issue "shouldn't stop there" but he's the fvcking president. Get out there and start pushing federal law to actually fully legalise abortion, same sex marriage, gay sex and freedom to contraceptives nation wide the explicit new actual laws. 

Thanks for that. I have to say America seems like one ****ed up country. 

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, Unabomber said:

Thanks for that. I have to say America seems like one ****ed up country. 

 

Their entire political machinery is fvcking insane. 

 

Ours isn't perfect, don't get me wrong, but theirs is so bonkers for a country that acts like it basically owns democracy. 

[FoxesDeb]

2 minutes ago, Unabomber said:

Thanks for that. I have to say America seems like one ****ed up country. 

It certainly seems that way from the western world looking in, and the most worrying thing about it is that it seems as though the majority of the population are happy with it. 

[Finnegan]

3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

It certainly seems that way from the western world looking in, and the most worrying thing about it is that it seems as though the majority of the population are happy with it. 

 

That is perhaps a little unfair.

 

Donald Trump lost the popular vote twice and the vast majority of Americans polled didn't want R v W overturned. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

7 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

It certainly seems that way from the western world looking in, and the most worrying thing about it is that it seems as though the majority of the population are happy with it. 

I looked at polls and it seems like it's 56/44 in favour of pro choice, the actual case on roe Vs wade is very merky though

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

I know it's lazy but I can't deliver my opinion any better than he did. 

 

"Hey if you read history you realise that god is one of the leading causes of death"

 

Absolutely perfect line. These pro-lifers have no idea how much blood is on their hands.

Edited 26 June 2022 by urban.spaceman

[ALC Fox]

Just incredible that six people can have that much power.

 

As said above, Trump lost the popular vote twice but the system allowed him to get into office so he could make the appointments to the Supreme Court that caused this to happen. The will of the people couldn't be further from tbe truth.

[RowlattsFox]

I think there should be a 'good' reason for abortion at any stage, but to be honest I don't know what you'd define as 'good' and who does decides it. You certainly shouldn't be removing choice and the option.

[rachhere]

This is such a complex one, and I am not sure I have completely know my own thoughts on this, if that makes any sense at all... they are still developing as I think, educate myself and listen to others perspectives.

 

For me a foetus of any stage of development has value. We see that across society, with people who have miscarriages early on in their pregnancy, so I struggle a bit when thinking of it in terms of weeks and viability for survival. I remember the devastation of friends of mine at the funeral of their little boy who was born very premature. He was still born, they were still his parents and we still celebrated his very short life. Ultimately I would hope for the chance for life for all.

 

HOWEVER... that's a very idealistic perspective and as we know this is so much more complex than that. The women who finds out their pregnancy isn't viable and is going to put their own life at risk, the victim of abuse, the person with underlying health conditions whose body can't cope with pregnancy. I 100% believe in their right to choose.

 

For the average person who is scared they don't have the financial resources, they aren't in the right place in life, etc, there is so much more which needs to be done to support them. Better access to healthcare, contraception, education, welfare - they need to be given a genuine choice, and cycles of deprivation need to be broken. 

 

[Parafox]

And then there's this:

 

What British women say matters to them about donating an aborted fetus to stem cell research: a focus group study

Naomi Pfeffer ¹

Affiliations expand

• PMID: 18375029
•  
• DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.050

Abstract

This is the first investigation into what matters to British women when they think about donating an aborted foetus to research, and how stem cell research and therapies might influence their views. Tissue derived from the aborted foetus is considered "the right tool for the job" in some stem cell laboratories. Research using tissue derived from aborted foetuses is permitted in Britain, while deliberate abortion to provide foetal tissue for research is illegal. Investigators are advised to seek women's agreement to donate the fetus after they have signed the consent form for the abortion, and stem cell researchers seek foetuses aborted under the 'social' grounds of the Abortion Act 1967. This research was based on focus groups with women who had both had a termination and had not had a termination. It found that initial enthusiasm for the donation of the aborted foetus for medical research, which was understood as a good thing, diminished as participants gained information and thought more carefully about the implications of such a decision. Lack of knowledge about how aborted foetuses are treated as scientific objects in the stem cell laboratory provoked concerns about mishandling, and invoked in some participants what we have called the duty of care which women feel towards babies and children. The duty of care might apply to other research using aborted foetuses. But what makes stem cell research more troubling is its association with renewal, regeneration, and immortality which participants understood as somehow reinstating and even developing the foetus' physical existence and social biography, the very thing abortion is meant to eliminate. By the end of the focus groups, participants had co-produced a tendency to refuse to donate aborted foetuses.

 

I'm not trying to influence the conversation in any way, just putting it out there that it's legal in Britain for aborted foetuses to be donated for research... if the birth mother agrees and signs up.

 

 

[Scotch]

3 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

Following up from the thread which went slightly off on a tangent, hopefully we can discuss abortion here instead. 

 

My opinion is that it should always be the woman's choice, and that as science tells us a foetus is not viable until it is able to survive outside of the womb, at around 22 weeks, my opinion is that termination should be available at least until then, with a caveat that after that time each individual case should be judged on its own merits. 

 

With regards to the US ruling on it, my feelings are well known I think, I see it as a backwards step which is wholly unsurprising for a backwards thinking country. 

I agree with all of this. 

 

When a baby can survive out of the womb, termination should be off the table. Before then, it's the mother's choice. People are heavily overlooking how much of a toll pregnancy takes on the mother. My Mrs was horrifically ill. No woman should be forced to bear that. 

 

I would add aswell that what's going on in America isn't a step towards banning abortions, its a step towards banning safe abortions. 

[Wymsey]

I've heard some say in the past, with regards to this topic, that it's like "killing a baby" and similar phrases.

It's really not. 

 

If the abortion is necessary due to clinical concerns via the doctor/other medical professional, or the Mother decides that it'd for the best for their sake, then allow it to happen - in my opinion.

Edited 26 June 2022 by Wymsey

[Xen]

21 minutes ago, Benguin said:

If everyone practised sex the way God designed it. I.e in the sanctity of marriage

The way your god designed it.

 

Or at least, the way your specific branch of your specific religion has translated and interpreted the specific stories/teachings that you've chosen to apply and adhere to. By all means, live your own life by those morals, but you have no more right to dictate how other people live their lives within the confines of the law (and equally, nor can you use that as justification for changing the law to fit your ideals).

 

 

There are many cases where a fetus (not a baby) is unviable and there's benefit to the mother to have an abortion. Whether that's literally life-saving for the woman or 'just' to prevent them having to carry a still-born to term is irrelevant - it should be an option available to any woman in need of it.

 

But even reducing it to medically-necessary cases is immoral. Should women who have been raped be forced to carry to term, when there's a perfectly accessible solution in an early-stage abortion (again, early enough that the fetus is not yet viable and certainly not 'alive')? That feels highly immoral and unfair, especially when the rapist would often get off with less than a 9-month term for their part in the offence, if any punishment at all.

 

And even then it's missing the point, and even outside of medical and traumatic situations like above, women should be allowed agency over their own bodies to choose to get an abortion if they so choose for whatever reason (granted there's a cutoff for viability around 22wks, as others have mentioned). Infeasibility of raising a child, an accidental pregnancy, even an intentional pregnancy and change of heart should all be allowed a choice over their own bodies.

 

 

Ultimately - the agency should lie with the person who is currently alive and breathing, not with someone else on behalf of a clump of cells which has the potential for life.

[Otis]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life, or the life of another person.

 

That’s it.

Does this apply to mandatory covid vaccinations?

[The Horse's Mouth]

3 hours ago, rachhere said:

This is such a complex one, and I am not sure I have completely know my own thoughts on this, if that makes any sense at all... they are still developing as I think, educate myself and listen to others perspectives.

 

For me a foetus of any stage of development has value. We see that across society, with people who have miscarriages early on in their pregnancy, so I struggle a bit when thinking of it in terms of weeks and viability for survival. I remember the devastation of friends of mine at the funeral of their little boy who was born very premature. He was still born, they were still his parents and we still celebrated his very short life. Ultimately I would hope for the chance for life for all.

 

HOWEVER... that's a very idealistic perspective and as we know this is so much more complex than that. The women who finds out their pregnancy isn't viable and is going to put their own life at risk, the victim of abuse, the person with underlying health conditions whose body can't cope with pregnancy. I 100% believe in their right to choose.

 

For the average person who is scared they don't have the financial resources, they aren't in the right place in life, etc, there is so much more which needs to be done to support them. Better access to healthcare, contraception, education, welfare - they need to be given a genuine choice, and cycles of deprivation need to be broken. 

 

You've done a great job in being close to my thoughts tbh (I'm not sure if I'm 100% on the choice though)

[urban.spaceman]

It really doesn’t get any simpler than this.

 

[PAULCFC]

America really is a paradox,been 3 times and taking my kids in two weeks to Orlando.It's very forward thinking...but then the gun laws and this!