Termination of Pregnancy Discussion

[WigstonWanderer]

12 minutes ago, Captain... said:

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.

I’m not saying that at all. I assume that very few abortions would be performed after 24 weeks even if legal. I took issue with the idea that a woman can choose to abort right up to the point of birth of a fully formed, 9 month child without good reason. Up to 24 weeks, fair enough. I think a majority of people would think this a reasonable compromise.

Edited 30 June 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

3 hours 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.

 

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

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.

This is pretty much where I come out really.

 

My main argument is, again, that the "Pro-life" lobby are using this one issue for legal change and not others. Personally I'd agree with your compromise, but I would still argue that until there is legal interference in other similar situations, what is going on in the US is both unfair and discriminatory.

[WigstonWanderer]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

This is pretty much where I come out really.

 

My main argument is, again, that the "Pro-life" lobby are using this one issue for legal change and not others. Personally I'd agree with your compromise, but I would still argue that until there is legal interference in other similar situations, what is going on in the US is both unfair and discriminatory.

Of course what is going on in the US is wrong. I tried very hard to make my views clear in my first post and am not part of the anti abortion lobby, or at least have never considered myself such. However, I am genuinely shocked at what I at least consider to be extreme views expressed here, by yourself and others that women should have complete freedom to decide on the fate of a fully formed baby right up to the point of birth.

 

I have already said that that I fully accept that there should be exceptions on medical grounds, and maybe others, but there should be good reasons.

 

Anyway, I’ll shut up now and let others decide for themselves where they stand.

 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Of course what is going on in the US is wrong. I tried very hard to make my views clear in my first post and am not part of the anti abortion lobby, or at least have never considered myself such. However, I am genuinely shocked at what I at least consider to be extreme views expressed here, by yourself and others that women should have complete freedom to decide on the fate of a fully formed baby right up to the point of birth.

 

I have already said that that I fully accept that there should be exceptions on medical grounds, and maybe others, but there should be good reasons.

 

Anyway, I’ll shut up now and let others decide for themselves where they stand.

 

I think that we're in broad agreement in most if not all areas here.

[Captain...]

5 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I’m not saying that at all. I assume that very few abortions would be performed after 24 weeks even if legal. I took issue with the idea that a woman can choose to abort right up to the point of birth of a fully formed, 9 month child without good reason. Up to 24 weeks, fair enough. I think a majority of people would think this a reasonable compromise.

But the point is freedom with compromises is not freedom. As it is there are very few people campaigning for the right to terminate late term foetuses, the 24 weeks point is generally accepted as ok for a "no questions asked abortion". Anything beyond that timeframe needs to be heavily considered and not gone into lightly, there will be health considerations for the mother regardless, there always are with terminations and they increase the older the foetus is. We can talk about reasons we find acceptable for late terminations and reasons we consider are not acceptable, but the freedom must be there for women to choose what happens to their body free of moral and legal recriminations.

[Dunge]

16 minutes ago, Captain... said:

But the point is freedom with compromises is not freedom. As it is there are very few people campaigning for the right to terminate late term foetuses, the 24 weeks point is generally accepted as ok for a "no questions asked abortion". Anything beyond that timeframe needs to be heavily considered and not gone into lightly, there will be health considerations for the mother regardless, there always are with terminations and they increase the older the foetus is. We can talk about reasons we find acceptable for late terminations and reasons we consider are not acceptable, but the freedom must be there for women to choose what happens to their body free of moral and legal recriminations.

This is pretty much where I am on this issue too.

[leicsmac]

 

This is unconscionable.

[st albans fox]

Also in Missouri, a ten y o rape victim has to continue with her pregnancy ……. Could the yanks end up with a civil war ???

[Guest ttfn]

On 30/06/2022 at 15:01, Captain... said:

But the point is freedom with compromises is not freedom. As it is there are very few people campaigning for the right to terminate late term foetuses, the 24 weeks point is generally accepted as ok for a "no questions asked abortion". Anything beyond that timeframe needs to be heavily considered and not gone into lightly, there will be health considerations for the mother regardless, there always are with terminations and they increase the older the foetus is. We can talk about reasons we find acceptable for late terminations and reasons we consider are not acceptable, but the freedom must be there for women to choose what happens to their body free of moral and legal recriminations.

I’m not quite sure what you’re advocating here.

 

Once the baby/foetus has reached viability it is going to be of a sufficient size that removing it from the woman carrying it is going to cause physical trauma one way or the other. Are you advocating abortion through “killing” (for want of a better word) the foetus and then removing it from the woman carrying it or are you advocating the woman’s right to end the pregnancy by deliberately delivering it early and the foetus to take its chances in a hospital?

 

Morally I think they are very different positions, one of which seems a lot more extreme than the other.

[WigstonWanderer]

On 30/06/2022 at 22:01, Captain... said:

But the point is freedom with compromises is not freedom.

The NRA would certainly agree with you on this point.

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, ttfn said:

I’m not quite sure what you’re advocating here.

 

Once the baby/foetus has reached viability it is going to be of a sufficient size that removing it from the woman carrying it is going to cause physical trauma one way or the other. Are you advocating abortion through “killing” (for want of a better word) the foetus and then removing it from the woman carrying it or are you advocating the woman’s right to end the pregnancy by deliberately delivering it early and the foetus to take its chances in a hospital?

 

Morally I think they are very different positions, one of which seems a lot more extreme than the other.

I am not advocating anything other than choice, the choice for the woman to decide what is best for her and her body with full medical support, free of moral judgement and legal recriminations. I am not qualified to comment on the correct medical procedures and I'm not going to pass moral judgement on situations.

 

Freedom of choice should be absolute not just from an ethical view point but also because desperate people will seek illegal alternatives or "home remedies" and that is very dangerous.

[Monk]

19 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I am not advocating anything other than choice, the choice for the woman to decide what is best for her and her body with full medical support, free of moral judgement and legal recriminations. I am not qualified to comment on the correct medical procedures and I'm not going to pass moral judgement on situations.

 

Freedom of choice should be absolute not just from an ethical view point but also because desperate people will seek illegal alternatives or "home remedies" and that is very dangerous.

 

Do you not think that there is a point in the pregnancy where it would no longer be ethical to offer that choice?

 

 

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, Monk said:

 

Do you not think that there is a point in the pregnancy where it would no longer be ethical to offer that choice?

 

 

Do you think there is a point where it is ethical for someone else to decide what you do with your body?

 

Again to make it clear I am not advocating abortions or anything other than a women having the right to choose what happens to her body.

[Monk]

8 hours ago, Captain... said:

Do you think there is a point where it is ethical for someone else to decide what you do with your body?

 

Again to make it clear I am not advocating abortions or anything other than a women having the right to choose what happens to her body.

I would have thought when there is clear suffering caused to another human being then it would be unethical, no?

 

I mean if you hypothetically aborted after the point where it is viable but did not support the baby to survive, then it would suffer in its death outside of the mothers body and even the most ardent abortion supporters would see that as unethical. 
 

Also, it’s not just about you choosing what you do with your body, it’s about a medical professional deciding if to carry out the procedure. Who in their right mind would do such a procedure unless the mothers life was at risk. 

[st albans fox]

55 minutes ago, Monk said:

I would have thought when there is clear suffering caused to another human being then it would be unethical, no?

 

I mean if you hypothetically aborted after the point where it is viable but did not support the baby to survive, then it would suffer in its death outside of the mothers body and even the most ardent abortion supporters would see that as unethical. 
 

Also, it’s not just about you choosing what you do with your body, it’s about a medical professional deciding if to carry out the procedure. Who in their right mind would do such a procedure unless the mothers life was at risk. 

Some Unregulated back street clinics used to take money for pretty much anything ….. society has short memories … well religious nut jobs do ….

[Monk]

10 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Some Unregulated back street clinics used to take money for pretty much anything ….. society has short memories … well religious nut jobs do ….

V true, but the question was is it ethical. 

[Captain...]

6 hours ago, Monk said:

I would have thought when there is clear suffering caused to another human being then it would be unethical, no?

 

I mean if you hypothetically aborted after the point where it is viable but did not support the baby to survive, then it would suffer in its death outside of the mothers body and even the most ardent abortion supporters would see that as unethical. 
 

Also, it’s not just about you choosing what you do with your body, it’s about a medical professional deciding if to carry out the procedure. Who in their right mind would do such a procedure unless the mothers life was at risk. 

So you would be ok with being forced to donate a kidney to a stranger?

 

I don't really want to get into hypothetical situations we can all find something we agree with (a life threatening medical condition) something we don't (worried about losing her figure) and something in between (found out the father is a vile human being of Jimmy Savile proportions). There are no absolutes when it comes to ethical and moral decision making. This is why I am trying to keep that element out of it and make it purely about a person's right to decide what happens to their own body, and being free to explore any and all medical interventions including adoption, induction, caesarean and termination.

 

I have enough faith in humanity to believe that the number of women who would want termination of a viable foetus would be miniscule, but the stigma around it as it currently exists does lead to women continuing with dangerous and life threatening pregnancies or seeking dangerous illegal alternatives and "home remedies".

[Heskey2011]

On 26/06/2022 at 22:25, 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!

My mates just moved back here from Dallas, his garage got shot up a few years back because the shooter got wrong address, no big deal apparently, think stuff like this must happen all the time.

Scared me so much I don't think I could ever go the states.

[Monk]

31 minutes ago, Captain... said:

So you would be ok with being forced to donate a kidney to a stranger?

I don't get the analogy, but as a Kidney transplant recipient of 22 years I would wholeheartedly give a kidney to a stranger, if it was an option for me, if it was in a cross matching scheme (where you want to donate to someone you do know, but there is not a match, there are schemes where they can match you with someone with the opposite tissue / blood type so that you can have a 'chain' of donation and the person you want to get a kidney gets the transplant they they need.

 

Anyway, that's off topic sorry but something that hits close to home.

 

31 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I have enough faith in humanity to believe that the number of women who would want termination of a viable foetus would be miniscule, but the stigma around it as it currently exists does lead to women continuing with dangerous and life threatening pregnancies or seeking dangerous illegal alternatives and "home remedies".

It may well be miniscule, but you still need to have the relevant laws in place to prevent the unthinkable (a viable fetus being killed outside of the body).

 

Don't get me wrong, I am pro abortion but I think there are few who believe there should be zero regulation and limits with regards to when it can occur.

 

Adoption etc yep completely agree that is an option but I don't think that's what you were alluding to in your original post.

[Monk]

8 minutes ago, Heskey2011 said:

My mates just moved back here from Dallas, his garage got shot up a few years back because the shooter got wrong address, no big deal apparently, think stuff like this must happen all the time.

Scared me so much I don't think I could ever go the states.

I'm in the states 2-4 times each year to see family and the country is a mess. Not just the issues you mention but so much more.

[Captain...]

20 minutes ago, Monk said:

I don't get the analogy, but as a Kidney transplant recipient of 22 years I would wholeheartedly give a kidney to a stranger, if it was an option for me, if it was in a cross matching scheme (where you want to donate to someone you do know, but there is not a match, there are schemes where they can match you with someone with the opposite tissue / blood type so that you can have a 'chain' of donation and the person you want to get a kidney gets the transplant they they need.

 

Anyway, that's off topic sorry but something that hits close to home.

 

It may well be miniscule, but you still need to have the relevant laws in place to prevent the unthinkable (a viable fetus being killed outside of the body).

 

Don't get me wrong, I am pro abortion but I think there are few who believe there should be zero regulation and limits with regards to when it can occur.

 

Adoption etc yep completely agree that is an option but I don't think that's what you were alluding to in your original post.

Well perhaps you are not the best person to use that analogy on. The relevance of that analogy is you are not in any scheme you are not a donor but you have been selected out of a hat as a compatible donor and therefore you must donate. The point is about body autonomy and you shouldn't be able to force someone to donate a part of their body, you shouldn't be able to force someone to use their body to incubate a child against their will.

 

My point has always been about choice and not demonising one of those choices when it may be the best option. It is not about offering abortions willy nilly, but offering a choice and the professional support to make an informed decision. Termination must be one of those choices and should be talked about openly and not with a view to talking someone out of it. If all options are talked about and all consequences duly considered then hopefully the right decision is reached.

 

Even purely from a psychological point of view if a women wants a termination and is told she can't have one she will never be happy with the alternative. If she is told she can have one but there are other options available and decides to follow an alternative course of action she will feel she has made an informed decision and not been coerced into doing something she doesn't want. If she believes there is no chance of a termination she might not even talk to a professional about options and take matters into her own hands.

[WigstonWanderer]

37 minutes ago, Monk said:

I don't get the analogy, but as a Kidney transplant recipient of 22 years I would wholeheartedly give a kidney to a stranger, if it was an option for me, if it was in a cross matching scheme (where you want to donate to someone you do know, but there is not a match, there are schemes where they can match you with someone with the opposite tissue / blood type so that you can have a 'chain' of donation and the person you want to get a kidney gets the transplant they they need.

 

Anyway, that's off topic sorry but something that hits close to home.

 

It may well be miniscule, but you still need to have the relevant laws in place to prevent the unthinkable (a viable fetus being killed outside of the body).

 

Don't get me wrong, I am pro abortion but I think there are few who believe there should be zero regulation and limits with regards to when it can occur.

 

Adoption etc yep completely agree that is an option but I don't think that's what you were alluding to in your original post.

I think we’re coming at this from the same angle. We keep being told that we’re religious nuts (absolutely no religion here), or what about women risking their health (again, no issue, the woman’s health is paramount), or what If the woman was raped, or subject to incest, and a host of other red herrings. I (and I think you) are simply arguing that women should not have free licence to terminate a pregnancy after the foetus reaches viability outside the womb. If there is to be such a termination, there needs to be a very good reason, and it is entirely proper that the law has a say in it.

 

Appeals to absolute freedom are entirely bogus. Few freedoms come without restrictions when they impinge on another entity.

[WigstonWanderer]

11 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Well perhaps you are not the best person to use that analogy on. The relevance of that analogy is you are not in any scheme you are not a donor but you have been selected out of a hat as a compatible donor and therefore you must donate. The point is about body autonomy and you shouldn't be able to force someone to donate a part of their body, you shouldn't be able to force someone to use their body to incubate a child against their will.

 

My point has always been about choice and not demonising one of those choices when it may be the best option. It is not about offering abortions willy nilly, but offering a choice and the professional support to make an informed decision. Termination must be one of those choices and should be talked about openly and not with a view to talking someone out of it. If all options are talked about and all consequences duly considered then hopefully the right decision is reached.

 

Even purely from a psychological point of view if a women wants a termination and is told she can't have one she will never be happy with the alternative. If she is told she can have one but there are other options available and decides to follow an alternative course of action she will feel she has made an informed decision and not been coerced into doing something she doesn't want. If she believes there is no chance of a termination she might not even talk to a professional about options and take matters into her own hands.

Just so that I’ve understood what you’re saying, if a woman decides when just about to give birth, that she doesn’t want to go through with it, you’d be in favour of termination? I.e killing a baby shortly before birth? This is all in the name of total freedom?

 

I know I said I’d keep quiet but this is so ludicrous and repugnant that it simply must be challenged. Surely it goes further than any state in the world has licensed.

Edited 4 July 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I think we’re coming at this from the same angle. We keep being told that we’re religious nuts (absolutely no religion here), or what about women risking their health (again, no issue, the woman’s health is paramount), or what If the woman was raped, or subject to incest, and a host of other red herrings. I (and I think you) are simply arguing that women should not have free licence to terminate a pregnancy after the foetus reaches viability outside the womb. If there is to be such a termination, there needs to be a very good reason, and it is entirely proper that the law has a say in it.

 

Appeals to absolute freedom are entirely bogus. Few freedoms come without restrictions when they impinge on another entity.

I'm sorry if I'm not reading you right here and you've made it clear on previous posts...but why exactly do you think this particular area of the right to bodily autonomy vs right to life be subject to legislation and others should not be? It just seems, as it always has, a double standard and I'm yet to hear a decent argument why it isn't so.

 

If you don't think that way, then I'd be happy to have some clarity there too.

[Captain...]

8 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Just so that I’ve understood what you’re saying, if a woman decides when just about to give birth, that she doesn’t want to go through with it, you’d be in favour of termination? I.e killing a baby shortly before birth? This is all in the name of total freedom?

**Sigh** No, I'm not sure how many times I need to write I'm not in favour of termination, I don't want anyone ever to have to terminate a baby. I don't want to play hypotheticals, but in the incredibly unlikely scenario a woman for no reason decides she wants to abort at 8 1/2 months there is probably some mental health issues going on. I would rather that woman doesn't feel stigmatised for wanting to abort and seeks help rather than feels her only option is to take matters into her own hands.

Edited 4 July 2022 by Captain...