WigstonWanderer Posted 4 July 2022 Posted 4 July 2022 (edited) 20 minutes ago, leicsmac said: 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. Well I did mention that I thought there was a duty of care that applied in this case, whereas some arbitrary duty to a stranger (or for that matter a relative) to donate an organ is simply a ridiculous comparison. I ask you the same question. Do you truely believe that a woman has the right to terminate right up to the point of giving birth to a perfectly health baby? I realise that such terminations would be rare, even if legal, but is that really a right that can be granted? Can you point to any jurisdiction in the world that permits such a termination without very good reason? Edited 4 July 2022 by WigstonWanderer
Daggers Posted 4 July 2022 Posted 4 July 2022 17 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? 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. I’ve looked into terminating my second child because she’s detrimental to my wife’s and my life. Apparently you aren’t allowed to abort a 21yr old. 4
WigstonWanderer Posted 4 July 2022 Posted 4 July 2022 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Captain... said: **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. Look, I assume that you’re a caring and reasonable individual, and of course you wouldn’t want a perfectly healthy baby terminated just before birth. But by arguing that a woman should have an absolute right to terminate right up until the baby is actually born, that’s what your saying. I’m simply pointing out the contradiction. Of course there has to be a limit, it’s just a question of where the limit is drawn. Edited 4 July 2022 by WigstonWanderer 1
WigstonWanderer Posted 4 July 2022 Posted 4 July 2022 5 minutes ago, Daggers said: I’ve looked into terminating my second child because she’s detrimental to my wife’s and my life. Apparently you aren’t allowed to abort a 21yr old. Yeah I’ve got a 27 year old in the same category.
leicsmac Posted 4 July 2022 Posted 4 July 2022 2 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said: Well I did mention that I thought there was a duty of care that applied in this case, whereas some arbitrary duty to a stranger (or for that matter a relative) to donate an organ is simply a ridiculous comparison. I ask you the same question. Do you truely believe that a woman has the right to terminate right up to the point of giving birth to a perfectly health baby? I realise that such terminations would be rare, even if legal, but is that really what you would want? Can you point to any jurisdiction in the world that permits such a termination with very good reason? I think that a nebulous concept of "duty of care" based on the idea of "parental responsibility" isn't enough of a difference across the board to agree with legislation tbh, though obviously everyone thinks differently on that. WRT the question...morally, I think it would be a reprehensible act, though as I've laboured the point before, other similar morally reprehensible yet legal acts exist. With respect to legality...there is existing legal precedent regarding child death caused by parental neglect that could come into play were the point of birth imminently approaching. But I think, like you, that this would be an extremely rare, case-by-case circumstance.
WigstonWanderer Posted 4 July 2022 Posted 4 July 2022 (edited) 21 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I think that a nebulous concept of "duty of care" based on the idea of "parental responsibility" isn't enough of a difference across the board to agree with legislation tbh, though obviously everyone thinks differently on that. WRT the question...morally, I think it would be a reprehensible act, though as I've laboured the point before, other similar morally reprehensible yet legal acts exist. With respect to legality...there is existing legal precedent regarding child death caused by parental neglect that could come into play were the point of birth imminently approaching. But I think, like you, that this would be an extremely rare, case-by-case circumstance. I still think you ought to answer my question, yes or no. Of course it would be a morally reprehensible act (terminating a healthy baby just before birth) I’m sure that there’s no one here on either side of the argument that would disagree. But should it be legal? That’s what you and @Captain... seem to be advocating. You state that women should have an absolute right to terminate at any stage, without any supporting reason, other than their choice. Edit: And I don’t think “duty of care” is a nebulous concept. I’m no legal expert, but it seems to crop up regularly in law, for example an employer having a duty of care for the safety of employees. If a mother (or father) doesn’t have duty of care over a baby, even if unborn yet viable, who has? Edited 4 July 2022 by WigstonWanderer
brucey Posted 4 July 2022 Posted 4 July 2022 In my opinion, growing up as an unwanted child is worse than being aborted at a late stage. Not all unwanted children will be put up for adoption, many parents will feel obligated to keep, raise and resent them. There's enough misery in the world.
WigstonWanderer Posted 4 July 2022 Posted 4 July 2022 (edited) 1 minute ago, brucey said: In my opinion, growing up as an unwanted child is worse than being aborted at a late stage. Not all unwanted children will be put up for adoption, many parents will feel obligated to keep, raise and resent them. There's enough misery in the world. Well that argument could be applied to those who have actually been born, so nah. Edited 4 July 2022 by WigstonWanderer
Countryfox Posted 4 July 2022 Posted 4 July 2022 On 26/06/2022 at 16:16, leicsmac said: 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." ... My new go to reply to anyone discussing this argument. (N.B. I'm still struggling to get 'Godwinning' into a conversation though Mac .. )
leicsmac Posted 4 July 2022 Posted 4 July 2022 8 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said: I still think you ought to answer my question, yes or no. Of course it would be a morally reprehensible act (terminating a healthy baby just before birth) I’m sure that there’s no one here on either side of the argument that would disagree. But should it be legal? That’s what you and @Captain... seem to be advocating. You state that women should have an absolute right to terminate at any stage, without any supporting reason, other than their choice. Fair enough. No, in those very very rare cases, I would probably advocate to legislate for a solution whereby the child is safely induced or otherwise delivered and then given up for adoption, in order to meet a mutually beneficial solution. What I would not seek to do is to punish the mother legally in any way for this occurring, which is really what I have the problem with in the first place. First, last, always, pregnant women should always have the solution to not compromise their own bodily autonomy in order to maintain another life if they so choose available to them without legal penalty. I think the above solution would facilitate this. 3 minutes ago, Countryfox said: ... My new go to reply to anyone discussing this argument. (N.B. I'm still struggling to get 'Godwinning' into a conversation though Mac .. ) Keep following the Ukraine thread and I'm sure an opportunity will present itself. 1
WigstonWanderer Posted 4 July 2022 Posted 4 July 2022 2 minutes ago, leicsmac said: No, in those very very rare cases, I would probably advocate to legislate for a solution whereby the child is safely induced or otherwise delivered and then given up for adoption, in order to meet a mutually beneficial solution. What I would not seek to do is to punish the mother legally in any way for this occurring, which is really what I have the problem with in the first place Well I think we have found some common ground. 1
Monk Posted 4 July 2022 Posted 4 July 2022 On 26/06/2022 at 16:16, leicsmac said: 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. Bearing in mind I am on the same side of the argument as you, I really find this analogy completely upside down. The examples you gave are all of medical procedures. No one can be forced to undergo a medical procedure, apart from, perhaps the death penalty, But take your example of someone needing an organ donation. The surgeon CAN refuse to carry out the operation for a liver transplant if they believe you will continue to drink. They CAN refuse to carry out a kidney transplant if they believe it is too risky or unlikely to succeed. They can also refuse to take a blood donation if you are HIV positive. So there are plenty of cases where the patient may wish to have a procedure done but it is not possible due to risk, legality or ethics. And similarly a medical professional can refuse to perform an abortion on someone for whom it would cause bodily harm - or in the cases we have talked through today, it could potentially result in a manslaughter cause against the doctor himself. Whilst I agree with the sentiment that a woman has the right to do as she pleases with her body, we are still talking about a third party performing the procedure - and no doctor is going to be forced to do it in these circumstances as you would expect. Also small point on organ donation we now have UK wide presumed consent so the permission / organ donor list no longer applies.
leicsmac Posted 5 July 2022 Posted 5 July 2022 8 hours ago, Monk said: Bearing in mind I am on the same side of the argument as you, I really find this analogy completely upside down. The examples you gave are all of medical procedures. No one can be forced to undergo a medical procedure, apart from, perhaps the death penalty, Agreed. Not sure what the argument is here as termination of pregnancy is also a medical procedure. 8 hours ago, Monk said: But take your example of someone needing an organ donation. The surgeon CAN refuse to carry out the operation for a liver transplant if they believe you will continue to drink. They CAN refuse to carry out a kidney transplant if they believe it is too risky or unlikely to succeed. They can also refuse to take a blood donation if you are HIV positive. So there are plenty of cases where the patient may wish to have a procedure done but it is not possible due to risk, legality or ethics. And similarly a medical professional can refuse to perform an abortion on someone for whom it would cause bodily harm - or in the cases we have talked through today, it could potentially result in a manslaughter cause against the doctor himself. Ah right. Well, yeah, the analogy does assume consent from the medical professional carrying out the procedure in all circumstances which is of course incorrect, as you say. However, I'm not entirely sure what the point would be here as the doctor could refuse for either a pregnancy termination or organ donation equally, so I don't see how it makes one situation different from the other. 8 hours ago, Monk said: Whilst I agree with the sentiment that a woman has the right to do as she pleases with her body, we are still talking about a third party performing the procedure - and no doctor is going to be forced to do it in these circumstances as you would expect. Also small point on organ donation we now have UK wide presumed consent so the permission / organ donor list no longer applies. Again, I agree but I'm not sure how it discredits the analogy used. I'm glad that the UK does have opt-out rather than opt-in organ donation, sadly the US doesn't so the situation still applies over there, which is where all this awful stuff is happening. 1
dsr-burnley Posted 4 August 2022 Posted 4 August 2022 On 04/07/2022 at 16:24, brucey said: In my opinion, growing up as an unwanted child is worse than being aborted at a late stage. Not all unwanted children will be put up for adoption, many parents will feel obligated to keep, raise and resent them. There's enough misery in the world. I wonder what proportion of adults who were unwanted children, wish they had been put to death before they were old enough to know what was happening? Obviously you can only ask the "unfortunates" who weren't killed, so you get a skewed sample. But I bet there are loads of unwanted children who grow up to enjoy life.
dsr-burnley Posted 4 August 2022 Posted 4 August 2022 On 04/07/2022 at 15:32, 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? 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. Not true, actually. Several American states (the more "liberal" ones) used to allow partial-birth abortion. Basically, whichever way round the foetus was facing (and this went right up to full term) the doctors would induce birth, wait until the child was born half-way (about waist level) and then insert a tube into its head and suck its brains out. This was banned by the US government about 10 or 15 years ago. (The House of Representatives and/or the Senate did their political duty and made the law, rather than relying on the Supreme court to do the job for them.)
leicsmac Posted 4 August 2022 Posted 4 August 2022 4 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said: Really not that surprising It isn't, giving the polling data which suggests that a majority in most places in the US opposed the repealing of Roe v Wade and thus the additional restrictions placed on abortion. Just goes to show that the political system is set up there so the fundie minority can dictate policy to everyone else...but hey, it's a "republic" not a "democracy" so apparently that's OK. 5 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said: Not true, actually. Several American states (the more "liberal" ones) used to allow partial-birth abortion. Basically, whichever way round the foetus was facing (and this went right up to full term) the doctors would induce birth, wait until the child was born half-way (about waist level) and then insert a tube into its head and suck its brains out. This was banned by the US government about 10 or 15 years ago. (The House of Representatives and/or the Senate did their political duty and made the law, rather than relying on the Supreme court to do the job for them.) As an addendum to this, "pro-life" advocates infer this is still be used as one of their arguments. Intellectually dishonest, but of course for them it's a means to the end of gaining control.
leicsmac Posted 10 August 2022 Posted 10 August 2022 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-turned-chat-messages-mother-daughter-now-charged-abortion-rcna42185 Reprehensible from the authorities in Nebraska (obviously), and also from FB for simply rolling over and giving this teenage girl up, even if they were ignorant of what they were turning over.
filthyfox Posted 10 August 2022 Posted 10 August 2022 (edited) I think through the course of human history, we have learned the average length of time since insemination that counts before a foetus becomes viable to live outside of the womb unaided. It should be up to the woman to terminate at will up until this time. Ps... yes it is quite possible that some of my wild, one night oats may have been sown, and have either "gone away" or are playing the earth. I don't know. It was up to the woman to "let me come in" too. Edited 10 August 2022 by filthyfox
leicsmac Posted 8 April 2023 Posted 8 April 2023 Bumping this with related news: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65217437 It was never going to stop just at Roe v Wade, was it?
leicsmac Posted 8 April 2023 Posted 8 April 2023 March for Life: "This action by the court will save lives and ensure that the health and safety of women and girls is not compromised for the sake of advancing a pro-abortion political agenda. "This is a significant victory for the doctors and medical associations we represent and more importantly, the health and safety of women and girls." Alliance Defending Freedom: “The FDA never had the authority to approve these hazardous drugs and remove important safeguards. "This is a significant victory for the doctors and medical associations we represent and, more importantly, the health and safety of women and girls.” ... that's a truly impressive amount of disingenuous and pretence in one statement, I have to say.
Daggers Posted 8 April 2023 Posted 8 April 2023 2 hours ago, leicsmac said: Bumping this with related news: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65217437 It was never going to stop just at Roe v Wade, was it? So this does or this doesn’t have anything to do with Jesse Marsch?
Recommended Posts