Termination of Pregnancy Discussion

[HighPeakFox]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

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. 

Well, he's no longer allowed in General Chat, so he won't be able to reply.

[st albans fox]

27 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Well, he's no longer allowed in General Chat, so he won't be able to reply.

thats not very christian of the mods .......

[ALC Fox]

3 hours 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.

Fair points

[Footballwipe]

52 minutes ago, bovril said:

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. 

Let's call him what he is. A zealot scumbag. Not a helpful comment at all I concede, but the man clearly hides his prejudices behind his religion, using it as an excuse which unfortunately is what some religious people (of all denominations) are capable of. He doesn't do Christians any favours, but he does highlight the disgusting, backwards and incendiary attitude of some religious factions that got us to this point.

 

Also don't forget this is the wish of the pro-life gang, a gang who care about a baby and its mother right up until it's born. Then sorry, you're on your own. No belief in state support of these people, no help when the mother is penniless and lonely. you've had it now, crack on with your life. They care about the baby being born, they don't care about the quality of life it has.

 

There's also going to be a crime epidemic in the coming decades, as scores of unwanted young people, bought up in straining care systems and ripe for addiction and mental health issues take a potentially inevitable path down the wrong road.

 

It's 2022 and we are still letting religion run the biggest decisions in our world. It is crazy.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

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

Yeah, tends to vary between 55-45 and 65-35, but disagreeing with it being overturned is the majority consensus.

[indierich06]

I read an interesting thread on Twitter about how, during Lincoln's presidency, the Supreme Court made a ruling that black people were not and could not ever be considered citizens of the United States, that they had no human rights at all, and that congress had no right to ban slavery. He expanded the judiciary to make it less partisan, and began passing laws to end slavery, culminating the Emancipation Proclamation, which was a presidential executive order.

 

Regardless of which side you come down in this debate, Lincoln's actions in ending slavery just highlight how weak Biden and the Democrats response has been so far - the power to make decisions should belong in the hands of officials elected by the people, rather than an unelected judiciary - which is packed with so many partisan, biased right-wingers, it's basically unfit for purpose.

[urban.spaceman]

We have them here of course

 

 

[DennisNedry]

On 26/06/2022 at 16:16, leicsmac said:

 

"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.

I am pro-choice up to the point of foetal viability. I do have a big problem with the idea of being legal to abort after the point of viability up to full term, except in specific cases such as mother's health at risk, severe health condition discovered in the baby etc. I'm not putting words in your mouth leicsmac but I've seen it argued passionately by extreme 'pro-choicers' that a woman should have the right to an abortion - literally minutes before it is born. Would this be your stance? (I realise this is mostly a theoretical question because it would be an extremely rare event).

 

Also (forgive the meaningless hypothetical), if baby formula did not exist, would you support a new mother being able to legally starve her baby to death by refusing to breastfeed it because "NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life, or the life of another person."?

[Bert]

No uterus no opinion. 

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

I am pro-choice up to the point of foetal viability. I do have a big problem with the idea of being legal to abort after the point of viability up to full term, except in specific cases such as mother's health at risk, severe health condition discovered in the baby etc. I'm not putting words in your mouth leicsmac but I've seen it argued passionately by extreme 'pro-choicers' that a woman should have the right to an abortion - literally minutes before it is born. Would this be your stance? (I realise this is mostly a theoretical question because it would be an extremely rare event).

 

Also (forgive the meaningless hypothetical), if baby formula did not exist, would you support a new mother being able to legally starve her baby to death by refusing to breastfeed it because "NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life, or the life of another person."?

Interesting hypotheticals.

 

In the first situation, I would not necessarily like the idea of a late-term abortion at all; however, I don't like the idea of someone standing by and letting someone else die because they won't give blood to save their lives, or someone dying and not being on the organ donor list and someone dying because they couldn't get the organ they needed as a result. However, if those latter two things are not deemed illegal, nor should the first be.

 

On the second situation, a similar argument applies; if there is literally no other way for the mother to feed her child, and by feeding it the mother opens herself to potential complications and injuries that might endanger her via violation of her bodily autonomy...then yes, in the same name of even-handedness, I would allow for her being able to starve her baby so that she might live. It would no doubt be horrific, but again - if other very similar situations aren't, I don't see how this specific one should be. In any case, as you say, this is a pretty far-out hypothetical that I doubt would happen.

 

It all comes back to the same point in my view, really - I don't like termination of pregnancies, there's definitely a moral question to be asked there. However, as long as "pro-life" advocates focus on this issue in terms of legality and not on other similar ones (such as organ and blood donation to save a life), I will continue to view it as a hypocritical double standard, and (given that the double standard targets women only in this case) borne mostly out of a misogynistic desire to keep women controlled and providing a servile population.

 

Make the entire legal question of preserving life at the cost of bodily autonomy entirely even in all situations, and then I might consider it further.

 

5 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

We have them here of course

 

 

...perhaps Mr Kruger ought to consider what happened in previous times when things were left up to the "democratic decision of the states".

 

Black people were kept as chattel, that's what.

Edited 29 June 2022 by leicsmac

[dsr-burnley]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

...perhaps Mr Kruger ought to consider what happened in previous times when things were left up to the "democratic decision of the states".

 

Black people were kept as chattel, that's what.

Slavery was mandated by the national government as well as the individual states.  You can't deny democracy to the States or to the states because they got it wrong two and three centuries back.

[chapero82]

9 hours ago, Bert said:

No uterus no opinion. 

That’s my thoughts on this matter also

[davieG]

Leicestershire police boss calls overturning of US abortion rights a 'triumph' for democracy
Rupert Matthews received backlash after saying he 'welcomes' the US decision that allows politicians to decide abortion laws

 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/leicestershire-police-boss-calls-overturning-7265515

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Delete. Was a passive aggressive post at my fellow posters and I should know better! 

Kinda want to see it now.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Slavery was mandated by the national government as well as the individual states.  You can't deny democracy to the States or to the states because they got it wrong two and three centuries back.

That's true.

 

And then one day the national government decided that no new states were going to be allowed to keep human beings as chattel. And the slave states didn't like that, because they thought that the federal government would (and shouldn't) eventually impinge on their "states rights" to own and traffic in human beings. It took a war to convince them otherwise on that particular matter of civil rights.

 

It's absolutely right that this black mark shouldn't mean that states rights are invalidated as a whole or that they shouldn't be able to make democratic decisions in their own part on anything, but on the matter of basic civil rights then the precedent is pretty clear. This is one of those matters. Again, perhaps Mr Kruger might consider that before implying that everything, including fundamental human rights, is up for "democratic debate".

[dsr-burnley]

44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's true.

 

And then one day the national government decided that no new states were going to be allowed to keep human beings as chattel. And the slave states didn't like that, because they thought that the federal government would (and shouldn't) eventually impinge on their "states rights" to own and traffic in human beings. It took a war to convince them otherwise on that particular matter of civil rights.

 

It's absolutely right that this black mark shouldn't mean that states rights are invalidated as a whole or that they shouldn't be able to make democratic decisions in their own part on anything, but on the matter of basic civil rights then the precedent is pretty clear. This is one of those matters. Again, perhaps Mr Kruger might consider that before implying that everything, including fundamental human rights, is up for "democratic debate".

But Mr Kruger considers that unborn babies / foetuses have fundamental human rights as well.  Therein lies the impossibility of compromise.  To many people, the mother's human rights are absolute (at least until 24 weeks) and the unborn entity has no rights at all.  Others think the unborn entity should have basic human rights.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

But Mr Kruger considers that unborn babies / foetuses have fundamental human rights as well.  Therein lies the impossibility of compromise.  To many people, the mother's human rights are absolute (at least until 24 weeks) and the unborn entity has no rights at all.  Others think the unborn entity should have basic human rights.

Not quite right IMO... he considers them to have rights no other human relying on someone else to preserve their life in whatever capacity has. Namely, the right to legally compel that someone else to preserve their life at the cost of their own bodily autonomy on pain of legal penalty.

 

Whether that is morally right or not is of course up to the beholder, but what it is not is in any way even-handed.

 

As I quoted in the first page, the question of whether or not a developing foetus is a human being or not is entirely irrelevant and a smokescreen.

 

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

 

Until that changes in other areas, to focus on this one in the way that folks have done and Mr Kruger appears to endorse is hypocrisy and quite possibly discriminatory.

 

There is no "compromise" on any other comparable situation. There shouldn't be in this one.

 

[Captain...]

15 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

I am pro-choice up to the point of foetal viability. I do have a big problem with the idea of being legal to abort after the point of viability up to full term, except in specific cases such as mother's health at risk, severe health condition discovered in the baby etc. I'm not putting words in your mouth leicsmac but I've seen it argued passionately by extreme 'pro-choicers' that a woman should have the right to an abortion - literally minutes before it is born. Would this be your stance? (I realise this is mostly a theoretical question because it would be an extremely rare event).

 

Also (forgive the meaningless hypothetical), if baby formula did not exist, would you support a new mother being able to legally starve her baby to death by refusing to breastfeed it because "NOBODY has the right to use your body, against your will, even to save their life, or the life of another person."?

By extension of the above what you're saying is that the women is/should be legally responsible for the well being of the foetus after the point of viability? So should women who have a late term miscarriage be investigated for manslaughter? If it turns out that they had eaten cured meats and soft cheese (which is against medical advice) and got listeria based food poisoning resulting in a miscarriage or used a hot tub or didn't isolate during COVID or drank some alcohol... is that manslaughter or even murder? I hope the answer is no.

 

The hope is that most women who have a viable foetus actively want the baby, but there will be cases where they didn't know they were pregnant or didn't feel able to discuss their pregnancy/abortion options until past that point or have their situation change to a point where having the baby would be less desirable than termination. In these very rare cases there shouldn't be any legal or moral barrier stopping women making the decision when it comes to their body. Their should be counselling available but not enforced and not with the aim of convincing them not to terminate. 

[RobHawk]

Me and my wife sadly aborted our first at 22 weeks nearly 8 years ago. 

 

We'd tried for kids for years and finally fell pregnant via IVF only to be given the worst possible news at the 20 week scan that our girl was seriously unwell and not compatible with life. It turns out she had a very rare genetic disorder. If she had made full term she'd have done well to last a day. 

 

My wife signed the paperwork to make the hardest decision of our lives (I was there but they didn't need anything from me which felt wrong under the circumstances, we both made that decision). I'll spare the emotional turmoil that decision caused but we both know we made the right decision by putting our girl out of her pain. She was a child, she was loved but to keep her in pain in hope of a miracle that wasn't coming would have been selfish. 

 

If anyone believes that we were wrong, then I fully believe they deserve a punch in the face and I would be happy to administer. Luckily, most people I know arent fundamental Christian morons.

Edited 29 June 2022 by RobHawk

[WigstonWanderer]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Not quite right IMO... he considers them to have rights no other human relying on someone else to preserve their life in whatever capacity has. Namely, the right to legally compel that someone else to preserve their life at the cost of their own bodily autonomy on pain of legal penalty.

 

Whether that is morally right or not is of course up to the beholder, but what it is not is in any way even-handed.

 

As I quoted in the first page, the question of whether or not a developing foetus is a human being or not is entirely irrelevant and a smokescreen.

 

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

 

Until that changes in other areas, to focus on this one in the way that folks have done and Mr Kruger appears to endorse is hypocrisy and quite possibly discriminatory.

 

There is no "compromise" on any other comparable situation. There shouldn't be in this one.

 

Before I go on I want to make a few things clear.

 

- I am not religious.

- I support a woman’s right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy right up to the point that the foetus has realistic viability outside the womb.

- I support the right to termination at any stage on medical grounds, and acknowledge that the mother’s life takes priority.

- I support the right for the parents to terminate at any stage on grounds that the foetus is seriously defective, though I would hope that this would be done at as early a stage as possible.

- I acknowledge that other unforeseen issues could arise from an unfortunate series of events that may provide a case for late stage termination, but feel that this would need external verification (Family Court perhaps).

 

However some of the views expressed above, suggesting that women should be free to terminate right up to the point of birth of a perfectly healthy baby on arbitrary grounds, are extreme. In my view such arguments are unhelpful to anyone campaigning for the right to choose, as many ordinary folk (perhaps most) would find such views repugnant, and frankly darkly dystopian.

To take an extreme example, according to your statements, a woman can be in hospital, about to give birth to a healthy 9 month baby, and simply decide “you know what, I can’t be arsed, kill it and take it out”. One way or another, dead or alive, that baby is coming out, so no purpose is served. Abortion in such a case does not prevent birth.

 

Your argument regarding organ donation does not stack up in my view. It is a false equivalence as it lacks the concept of duty of care which I think most people would agree applies to a late term mother carrying an externally viable foetus (at this stage we really can say baby). If someone left a baby on my doorstep I believe I would have a similar duty of care right up until I have handed it over to appropriate authorities, and similar applies here. Of course the mother cannot and should not be forced to bring the baby up, and this doesn’t happen anyway as it can be put up for adoption.

 

I acknowledge that my example is extreme, and that very few (if any) such abortions (immediately prior to birth of a healthy baby) would ever take place, even if it was legal to do so. However, my point is that if this extreme is disallowed, it becomes necessary to set a time limit on a woman’s right to choose, and the point of viability seems to be the most appropriate and logical.

 

Edited 29 June 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

52 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Before I go on I want to make a few things clear.

 

- I am not religious.

- I support a woman’s right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy right up to the point that the foetus has realistic viability outside the womb.

- I support the right to termination at any stage on medical grounds, and acknowledge that the mother’s life takes priority.

- I support the right for the parents to terminate at any stage on grounds that the foetus is seriously defective, though I would hope that this would be done at as early a stage as possible.

- I acknowledge that other unforeseen issues could arise from an unfortunate series of events that may provide a case for late stage termination, but feel that this would need external verification (Family Court perhaps).

 

However some of the views expressed above, suggesting that women should be free to terminate right up to the point of birth of a perfectly healthy baby on arbitrary grounds, are extreme. In my view such arguments are unhelpful to anyone campaigning for the right to choose, as many ordinary folk (perhaps most) would find such views repugnant, and frankly darkly dystopian.

To take an extreme example, according to your statements, a woman can be in hospital, about to give birth to a healthy 9 month baby, and simply decide “you know what, I can’t be arsed, kill it and take it out”. One way or another, dead or alive, that baby is coming out, so no purpose is served. Abortion in such a case does not prevent birth.

 

Your argument regarding organ donation does not stack up in my view. It is a false equivalence as it lacks the concept of duty of care which I think most people would agree applies to a late term mother carrying an externally viable foetus (at this stage we really can say baby). If someone left a baby on my doorstep I believe I would have a similar duty of care right up until I have handed it over to appropriate authorities, and similar applies here. Of course the mother cannot and should not be forced to bring the baby up, and this doesn’t happen anyway as it can be put up for adoption.

 

I acknowledge that my example is extreme, and that very few (if any) such abortions (immediately prior to birth of a healthy baby) would ever take place, even if it was legal to do so. However, my point is that if this extreme is disallowed, it becomes necessary to set a time limit on a woman’s right to choose, and the point of viability seems to be the most appropriate and logical.

 

I can see your point, but re. the bolded: how is the "duty of care" here any different from, say, a friend or relative dying unless you give them blood or an organ? Or a person knowing that there's a massive organ donor waiting list but refuses to opt into being a donor when they themselves die? Those people are viable, living human beings too. Is it the issue of "responsibility"? The idea that an unborn child is more innocent and requires greater protection?

 

In all cases, a person makes a decision not to help, and another person dies as a result.

 

What makes this particular situation so different to other ones where a life is on the line and you must do something that compromises your own bodily integrity to save them that it must be mandated by legality? (Bolding that last part for importance).

 

Either regulate all such situations, or none. That's fair.

[WigstonWanderer]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I can see your point, but re. the bolded: how is the "duty of care" here any different from, say, a friend or relative dying unless you give them blood or an organ? Or a person knowing that there's a massive organ donor waiting list but refuses to opt into being a donor when they themselves die? Those people are viable, living human beings too. Is it the issue of "responsibility"? The idea that an unborn child is more innocent and requires greater protection?

 

In all cases, a person makes a decision not to help, and another person dies as a result.

 

What makes this particular situation so different to other ones where a life is on the line and you must do something that compromises your own bodily integrity to save them that it must be mandated by legality? (Bolding that last part for importance).

 

Either regulate all such situations, or none. That's fair.

Partly a matter of responsibility, partly the innocent child being vulnerable and requiring protection. Someone requiring blood or an organ can speak for themselves, seek alternative sources, etc. A baby cannot, and in my view once the foetus has reached viability, it should be regarded as a separate individual that deserves protection. I think most reasonable people would be able to see the difference.

 

Regarding the second bit that I have bolded, I must ask what compromises to bodily integrity are being sought? In the situation we are discussing the baby is already there. It cannot be magiced away, it must be born, dead or alive, I cannot see that this involves any greater risk to the mother, and if it does, then I have already accepted that the mother’s life should take priority. Literally the only difference is whether it is dead or alive when born, and I don’t think the mother should have the right to decide this at this stage, effectively on a whim.

 

I must say I have always regard myself as pro choice, but this discussion makes me want to examine the fine print of what the more radical supporters of abortion are actually demanding, to see what I’m signing up for.

Edited 30 June 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[Captain...]

52 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Partly a matter of responsibility, partly the innocent child being vulnerable and requiring protection. Someone requiring blood or an organ can speak for themselves, seek alternative sources, etc. A baby cannot, and in my view once the foetus has reached viability, it should be regarded as a separate individual that deserves protection. I think most reasonable people would be able to see the difference.

 

Regarding the second bit that I have bolded, I must ask what compromises to bodily integrity are being sought? In the situation we are discussing the baby is already there. It cannot be magiced away, it must be born, dead or alive, I cannot see that this involves any greater risk to the mother, and if it does, then I have already accepted that the mother’s life should take priority. Literally the only difference is whether it is dead or alive when born, and I don’t think the mother should have the right to decide this at this stage, effectively on a whim.

 

I must say I have always regard myself as pro choice, but this discussion makes me want to examine the fine print of what the more radical supporters of abortion are actually demanding, to see what I’m signing up for.

Let's be clear nobody wants abortions to happen, nobody is advocating abortions as a good thing, the argument here is one of choice and the freedom to make that choice about your own body. Freedom without the moral and religious pressure created by the pro life lobby. What you've said above is exactly the kind of thing that adds to that pressure. Women must be free to make these incredibly tough decisions without the pressure of judgement and recriminations. Nobody is seeking a late term abortion on a whim, but increasing the pressure and stigma around abortions will result in more women not seeking early abortions and result in more late term unwanted pregnancies and possible extreme measures being taken.

 

If there is one valid scenario where the right thing to do is terminate a viable foetus then it must be legally and morally permitted.

[WigstonWanderer]

28 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Let's be clear nobody wants abortions to happen, nobody is advocating abortions as a good thing, the argument here is one of choice and the freedom to make that choice about your own body. Freedom without the moral and religious pressure created by the pro life lobby. What you've said above is exactly the kind of thing that adds to that pressure. Women must be free to make these incredibly tough decisions without the pressure of judgement and recriminations. Nobody is seeking a late term abortion on a whim, but increasing the pressure and stigma around abortions will result in more women not seeking early abortions and result in more late term unwanted pregnancies and possible extreme measures being taken.

 

If there is one valid scenario where the right thing to do is terminate a viable foetus then it must be legally and morally permitted.

No idea where you’re coming from here. Are you in favour of allowing later term abortions of a child that has reached the stage of being viable outside the womb (over 24 weeks as I understand) for no practical reason? If so, I strongly disagree.

Edited 30 June 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[Captain...]

27 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

No idea where you’re coming from here. Are you in favour of allowing later term abortions of a child that has reached the stage of being viable outside the womb (over 24 weeks as I understand) for no practical reason? If so, I strongly disagree.

Again you twist it like people are saying "hey everyone let's all have abortions for no reason." Nobody is saying that, however freedom of choice means freedom of choice. Trust me on this there would only be extreme cases where any woman would want to terminate after 24 weeks but should that arise they must be able to be free to make a really difficult decision without external factors adding feelings of guilt and shame and even throwing around the threat of legal action.

 

It is all of that pressure and guilt, more so in America and Northern Ireland than England, that lead to woman not feeling able to abort early on in pregnancy that leads to further health complications later on jeopardising the health of mother and baby and requiring intervention on a viable foetus. Any termination of a viable foetus should not be done on a whim or without due consideration, that goes without saying, but those discussions must be had around the health impact and not the moral issues and if the only option is termination then it must be free from any threat of legal action and recriminations.