Termination of Pregnancy Discussion

[Sly]

Where to start on religion and how crazy it warps beliefs. 
 

I think Ricky Gervais hit the nail On the head when he said that the world has 3,000 Gods to choose from. Christians don’t believe in 2,999 of them. As an an atheist, he doesn’t believe in one more. 
 

I’m fine with people having different opinions and beliefs to me, as long as it doesn’t impact people for the wider good. 
 

The change in stance is shocking though. A female has the right to choose what she does with her body. 
 

When does this end? Do they go after Loving Vs Virginia? 

[Scotch]

3 hours ago, rachhere said:

 

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. 

 

This is the truly terrifying thing about what's happening in America right now.

 

The same supreme court justice who was instrumental in this, Clarence Thomas has already spoken about going after contraception in much the same way. They don't have healthcare. Their education system is ludicrous (outside the top schools) and the little I know about their welfare system isn't great...

[Sly]

2 hours ago, Scotch said:

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. 

This bit is key. 
 

People will still have abortions, it’ll just be back street and risk the life of the mother. 

[Fox in the North]

 As a man, it is not in my place to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Especially in a case like this where banning safe abortions could lead to far more dangerous and desperate outcomes. It is deeply illogical and unfree (for lack of a better word). 

[shen]

2 minutes ago, Fox in the North said:

 As a man, it is not in my place to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Especially in a case like this where banning safe abortions could lead to far more dangerous and desperate outcomes. It is deeply illogical and unfree (for lack of a better word). 

You can be 50000% sure that if men had the womb and not women, this would not even be up for debate. 

The mysoginistic and frankly dimwitted views that are so prevalent, even with people in power, in the US is astounding.

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, Xen said:

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.

I could not agree more and the moral/religious stance is, for me, made irrelevant by this post. Well done @Xen

[foxfanazer]

'And since a man can't make one
He has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one'

 

2pac lyrics from 1993. Almost 30 years later and still this kind of bullshit is happening 

[brucey]

2 hours ago, Fox in the North said:

 As a man, it is not in my place to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Especially in a case like this where banning safe abortions could lead to far more dangerous and desperate outcomes. It is deeply illogical and unfree (for lack of a better word). 

 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Otis said:

Does this apply to mandatory covid vaccinations?

Absolutely.

 

I think I've talked about this before, but I will clarify here as well.

 

Private individuals and companies should have the right to protect themselves against someone who could pose a greater health risk to them (in this case, someone who has not been vaccinated). However, like in the case of pregnancy termination, such things shouldn't be government-compelled, eg. being unvaxxed being illegal. That is a reasonably critical difference, I think.

 

Don't want to get vaccinated? Fair enough - the government should not in any way punish a person for that or compel them to do so through legal punishment.

Edited 27 June 2022 by leicsmac

[Jon the Hat]

33 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Absolutely.

 

I think I've talked about this before, but I will clarify here as well.

 

Private individuals and companies should have the right to protect themselves against someone who could pose a greater health risk to them (in this case, someone who has not been vaccinated. However, like in the case of pregnancy termination, such things shouldn't be government-compelled, eg. being unvaxxed being illegal. That is a reasonably critical difference, I think.

 

Don't want to get vaccinated? Fair enough - the government should not in any way punish a person for that or compel them to do so through legal punishment.

Indeed.  I was quite uncomfortable with the WA approach of essentially forcing 70% of the working population to choose between being vaccinated or losing their job.  Effective as it has no doubt been.  I think there was a case to say in the FIFO mining sector it was necessary to protect those on mine sites, but hospitality etc, you take your own risk imo.

[RobHawk]

America is ****ing stupid, do we need to say anymore, surely nobody can agree with this decision? It's 2022 ffs. I can guarantee is God was real (he isn't) he sure as shit wouldn't support those ****ing nutjobs

[Aus Fox]

How on earth you can both be “pro-life” and anti gun control is beyond my thinking.

At the same time you are saying you do not have the right to an abortion, you also say you are free to carry a gun in public for self-defence.

We must protect the rights of unborn children at all costs, that commitment to protection ends the day they start school.

For a country that likes to promote itself as the leader of the free world, their laws make no sense.

On abortion, I agree with every word of the opening post, no one should tell you what you can do with your body. 
The worst thing about this is the amount of deaths it will lead to; suicides, domestic violence, going to an unlicensed clinic for the procedure, a child being born and left, abused or mistreated by a parent who is mentally not fit to be a parent, but is forced into it.

Not to mention the amount of extra children thrown into the adoption, fostering, state care system - that is already overworked, under funded, abused and not fit for purpose.

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, RobHawk said:

America is ****ing stupid, do we need to say anymore, surely nobody can agree with this decision? It's 2022 ffs. I can guarantee is God was real (he isn't) he sure as shit wouldn't support those ****ing nutjobs

Most American's don't agree with this the implications of this decision.  For me the main question now is whether the a Federal laws can be succesfullly introduced to put in place the rights that the Supreme court just decided are not for it to decide.

[Captain...]

13 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. 

 

Exactly, you can debate the value of a fetus at a certain stage and the morals of an abortion, but you can't take away the right for people to choose what to do with their own body. 

[fuchsntf]

All of us put forward our views and rights to an opinion more than we believe others do,then stating  actually the same type of 'reasoning'

 

Does

 a foetus have a rights to an opinion,?

Can

a Foetus reason...?

Same dilema..! then

questioning  FT capabilities on the novelty

 can they ever judge & select a player...?

 

It should be the woman's choice...well we have seen them evolve & merge fantastically  into our game of football,

BUT ,they still haven't solved or found a  balanced for the

"Offside-trap" or ' VAR"...

 

 

 

 

Edited 27 June 2022 by fuchsntf

[indierich06]

12 hours ago, Scotch said:

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. 

Every case is unique. Me and my wife had to make the worst decision possible when our baby was diagnosed with three separate serious heart conditions at 20 weeks. She would have survived the pregnancy and been born, but she almost certainly would have died in her first year of life without a 'miraculous' (the doctor's words) surgical intervention. We made the decision to terminate because we didn't want her to suffer in any way - and it was the hardest thing that I've ever had to do, with me and my wife still feeling the effects of it now. 

 

What I've learned is that it's never black and white.

[st albans fox]

10 hours ago, shen said:

You can be 50000% sure that if men had the womb and not women, this would not even be up for debate. 

The mysoginistic and frankly dimwitted views that are so prevalent, even with people in power, in the US is astounding.

Amy coney- barrett

 

It’s a politics/religion thing 

 

not gender based - did you see the vast majority of those on the streets applauding this decision - mainly women …

[Scotch]

13 minutes ago, indierich06 said:

Every case is unique. Me and my wife had to make the worst decision possible when our baby was diagnosed with three separate serious heart conditions at 20 weeks. She would have survived the pregnancy and been born, but she almost certainly would have died in her first year of life without a 'miraculous' (the doctor's words) surgical intervention. We made the decision to terminate because we didn't want her to suffer in any way - and it was the hardest thing that I've ever had to do, with me and my wife still feeling the effects of it now. 

 

What I've learned is that it's never black and white.

First off, sorry to hear you went through that. I can't imagine how hard it was. 

 

What I was really saying was around  20+ weeks, it starts to become a different conversation. There are states talking about no abortion after the 6 weeks mark and stuff like that which is crazy IMO. 

[Captain...]

28 minutes ago, indierich06 said:

Every case is unique. Me and my wife had to make the worst decision possible when our baby was diagnosed with three separate serious heart conditions at 20 weeks. She would have survived the pregnancy and been born, but she almost certainly would have died in her first year of life without a 'miraculous' (the doctor's words) surgical intervention. We made the decision to terminate because we didn't want her to suffer in any way - and it was the hardest thing that I've ever had to do, with me and my wife still feeling the effects of it now. 

 

What I've learned is that it's never black and white.

I think the worst thing about this "debate" and the right wing fundamentalists is that it creates added pressure and applies added guilt and shame to what is already a really difficult decision. 

 

You 100% took the right decision and should not feel any guilt or shame because of it. Of course you'll feel sadness and grief and those emotions are hard enough without idiots adding in guilt and shame. Pro choice is not just about having access to clinics but being able to do so without any judgement or harassment.

[dsr-burnley]

16 hours ago, ALC Fox said:

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.

Any objection to 6 people having that much power is essentially agreeing that the decision to overturn is correct.  (Though the original Roe v Wade verdict was passed by by 7 of the 9 judges.)  I agree with you that the Supreme Court judges shouldn't have the power to make the law; they should only interpret the law, and Roe v Wade definitely slipped over into making the law.  It was Congress who should have made that law, if it was to be made.

[grobyfox1990]

12 hours ago, PAULCFC said:

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!

Orlando is as American as torrenolinos is Spanish. When I used to work in Washington, it’d be progressive and liberal etc etc but then you drive 20 odd mins into Baltimore, or travel to our regional office in Memphis, and then you see AMERICA. I bet the majority of US citizens somehow agree with this decision, we won’t hear about it over here

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Any objection to 6 people having that much power is essentially agreeing that the decision to overturn is correct.  (Though the original Roe v Wade verdict was passed by by 7 of the 9 judges.)  I agree with you that the Supreme Court judges shouldn't have the power to make the law; they should only interpret the law, and Roe v Wade definitely slipped over into making the law.  It was Congress who should have made that law, if it was to be made.

And if the Dems have any sense at all, they should be using that as a clarion call for this November and for 2024 so as to get and keep enough of a majority in both houses of Congress to get such a law passed.

 

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Orlando is as American as torrenolinos is Spanish. When I used to work in Washington, it’d be progressive and liberal etc etc but then you drive 20 odd mins into Baltimore, or travel to our regional office in Memphis, and then you see AMERICA. I bet the majority of US citizens somehow agree with this decision, we won’t hear about it over here

I think the polling on it has been extensive enough to tell us the truth.

 

This is only the latest part of the fundie flyover country being able and definitely willing to dictate policy to the coasts because of the quirks of the system over there.

[grobyfox1990]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And if the Dems have any sense at all, they should be using that as a clarion call for this November and for 2024 so as to get and keep enough of a majority in both houses of Congress to get such a law passed.

 

I think the polling on it has been extensive enough to tell us the truth.

 

This is only the latest part of the fundie flyover country being able and definitely willing to dictate policy to the coasts because of the quirks of the system over there.

Does the polling say most citizens disagree with the ruling? Haven't followed the case, other than via the headlines.

[bovril]

I think we could avoid generalisations. I'm a Christian and I don't believe abortion should be banned. I have a feeling I'm in the majority not the minority, at least in Europe, though it'd be interesting to see some figures. 

[bovril]

I also don't think Benguin does Christians many favours on here. I share political views (left wing, pro-EU) with many people I find extremely preachy and irritating. We accept that's true for politics so I don't see how it should be any different for religion. 

 

I don't read much of the religion debate on here but it seems much more aggressive and intolerant than the politics debate, despite the fact in the UK Christianity impacts peoples lives pretty minimally compared to decisions made by politicians. 

Edited 27 June 2022 by bovril