No, it kills a fetus. A fetus is not a child anymore than a child is an adult. If you want to accuse others of obfuscating an issue, then you should be particularly careful to avoid doing so yourself. Similarly, it would be best to avoid generalizing matters of brain function and trimester as simple issues of size, that is plainly not the case. If it were, then the conversation would be one of something like mass, or length, and that is plainly not the case.
Well what is the case? – you’ve still not given a clear definition. Why is 24 weeks a bad time to kill a fetus but 13 is not? Waht about 14,15,16 weeks? 2days? 8 days? 75 days? It’s illegal to kill both a 24 week old baby and a 13 week old baby but not when its in the womb - why? Enlighten me.
Go and read the deliberations of the parliament of the United Kingdom on this topic, and when you have done so, you will be significantly enlightened.
Here's a question, is it right to let a mother die from complications when the fetus isn't developed yet?
Fetus is going to die either way and honestly i don't think the anti-abortion protesters outside care about that, to them the doctor is simply a baby killer.
Thats why Palins name comes up mate, because she says this gak and she is roundly mocked by every educated person in the world who isnt a bible thumper from somewhere in America.
Glad to see the "I disagree with someone so they're an idiot" rationale is still around.
FWIW someone like Joe Biden or Kucinich would be a better example of a political idiot, but not being Conservative, they're off limits. (Plus, they think infanticide is OK!)
On topic, I wonder how so many people actually call themselves pro-choice. The only recent politician who wasn't (at least visibly) pro-abortion was B.J. Clinton with his "safe, legal, and rare" statement.
Frazzled wrote:Outside of the birthing process, when would that happen?
When would what happen?
The mother's life be in danger?
From what? I've lost track of the chain of thought.
So have I. Frankly copying the Gilligan's Island lyrics onto the DCM forum has made me slightly dizzy. I may have to go lay down, or even worse, get some work done.
Go and read the deliberations of the parliament of the United Kingdom on this topic, and when you have done so, you will be significantly enlightened.
What how it was illegal only 42 years ago? How its still illegal in Northern Ireland? I'm not going to re-read a whole act to make you happy so just make your points rather than try to get me to waste my time.
Besides I don't see how governmental policies determine if something is morally right. Slavery was legal - it didn't make it right.
If the BNP get in power and make it legal to grind up all the Polish for food it wont make it right!
My point is that this whole issue has been examined in great depth by society as a whole, and interest groups such as the churches. Scientists and ethicists have given advice. Everything has been considered, debated, put through committee stage, gone to the House of Lords, come back and gone through committee stage again, and finally a decision has been reached.
Which you disagree with, but you can't be bothered to inform you self about how and why that decision was taken, and you prefer ignore the points made that refute your own arguments.
Go and live in Eire if you like unwanted pregnancies so much.
biccat wrote:On topic, I wonder how so many people actually call themselves pro-choice. The only recent politician who wasn't (at least visibly) pro-abortion was B.J. Clinton with his "safe, legal, and rare" statement.
That was a great line and I think we should cleave to its spirit.
biccat wrote:FWIW someone like Joe Biden or Kucinich would be a better example of a political idiot, but not being Conservative, they're off limits. (Plus, they think infanticide is OK!)
On topic, I wonder how so many people actually call themselves pro-choice. The only recent politician who wasn't (at least visibly) pro-abortion was B.J. Clinton with his "safe, legal, and rare" statement.
Pro-choice isn't the same thing as pro-abortion. I'm also not sure where you get that infanticide is ok or that Biden and Kucinich have been off limits to criticism.
Good old Bill.. he was more appreciated here than in the US apprently, did you know they tabled a motion in parliament about him?
From wikipedia..
On February 25, 2004, British MP Stephen Pound tabled an early day motion titled "Anniversary of the Death of Bill Hicks" the text of which was as follows:
“ That this House notes with sadness the 10th anniversary of the death of Bill Hicks, on 26th February 1994, at the age of 33; recalls his assertion that his words would be a bullet in the heart of consumerism, capitalism and the American Dream; and mourns the passing of one of the few people who may be mentioned as being worthy of inclusion with Lenny Bruce in any list of unflinching and painfully honest political philosophers.”
Mr Pound MP went on to recite Bill's famous "It's just a ride" speech.
I think thats cool. He was a funny guy, I loved his rage!
Thats why Palins name comes up mate, because she says this gak and she is roundly mocked by every educated person in the world who isnt a bible thumper from somewhere in America.
Someone with her identical beliefs can come on here and basically say much worse than she has every come out with, basically say "everyone who disagrees with me wants to shoot disabled people in the head" "lets nuke the world then lol" or "you all just want an excuse to murder people LOLZ!" and we have to sit and tolerate it.
What is the difference between her nonsense views and that of my mate here? Why can I acceptably mock the former and not the latter?
Frazz, you know shes a fething idiot, you just dont want to admit it because your quite clearly and obviously a staunch Republican mate! I mean, I can fully understand that, but honestly.. she clearly is an idiot, even regards to other politicians and you know it. I have to say that even though i have a scornful attitude towards them in general (politicians), I dont believe that most of them are stupid, but that bitch is clearly in need of a brain transplant.
Incidentally, I also take umbrage with the term pro-life. They use the term to try and discredit people that disagree with them (or non Christians generally). You know, that if you think that women should have the right to choose you are anti-life? Its all a grand nonsense perpetuated by my eternal foes.
And how the hell can you be pro life and pro gun!? Isnt that an oxymoron!?
I actually think she answered these questions well. I disagree with her personal feelings on abortion. BUT... by no means are her answers in this video bad...
she said "no it shouldn't be illegal"
She said "yes evolution SHOULD be exclusivly taught"
Now... some of the other crap she says may be bad, but this video really isn't
Kilkrazy wrote:There's none so blind as those who will not see.
My point is that this whole issue has been examined in great depth by society as a whole, and interest groups such as the churches. Scientists and ethicists have given advice. Everything has been considered, debated, put through committee stage, gone to the House of Lords, come back and gone through committee stage again, and finally a decision has been reached.
Which you disagree with, but you can't be bothered to inform you self about how and why that decision was taken, and you prefer ignore the points made that refute your own arguments.
Go and live in Eire if you like unwanted pregnancies so much.
I'm sure that all of these things were 'considered' before the oppression of quakers, the holding of slaves and everything else. Legally permissable =/= morally right.
Additionally Abortion is contrary to the medical ethics in the Hippocratic oath, both in its original version (derived from ancient Greece) and modern reformulations such as the World Medical Association's 1948 Declaration of Geneva which states: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception."
Yet 20 years later it's ok to kill babies?
I have read that act before so your blindness comment is irrelevant. Additionally many of the guidelines in the law are flouted - the whole double reference thing doesn't happen. 'Oh you're suicidal *wink wink*' and if the doctor is opposed to it on personal CO grounds then they are legally obliged to refer on to a doctor who will advocate the abortion.
Additionally most reasons cited are socio-economic ones. These clearly aren't going to cause 'injury to the physical or mental health of the woman or any existing children in her family'..
Cheers for the racism and what I presume to be some sort of poorly veiled anti-Catholic snipe. (FYI being Irish I have the right of freedom of passage to travel live and work in the UK, maybe you should check up on those laws.) Which would be funny if I was a Roman Catholic.
By your definiton of baby, yep, it sure is. There are all sorts of wonderful theocracies and monarchies in the world that control women and tell others how to live their lives and you have the freedom to choose to go live in those places if that is the kind of thing you want so badly. If you want a touch of liberty and a bit of freedom, well, your sometimes going to have to also live with the fact that everything you want you won't get. It's part of the price you pay for being free, well off, and alive all at the same time.
If it makes you feel any better I find your stance just as morally repugnant as you feel toward those who believe that a female should have the option to choose. So yes, legal and moral aren't the same thing, but that also doesn't mean that something that isn't legal is wrong either. Most would agree that armed robbery is wrong and it is also happens to be illegal.
Unless you spent a good deal of time studying medical ethics you probably shouldn't try and use that as an argument becuase all most of the arguments you've been "nuh-uh"ing come from medical ethics.
Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics. Infact I need to submit my proposed research to an ethics committee soon.
I'm not for controlling women or telling others how to live their lives. That is a false pretext. I don't see how you can offer liberty yet at the same time deprive an unborn child of its own liberty to live. Finding my view repugnant is your own prerogative. I might disagree with what you say. I don't dispute that you are allowed to say it, nor do I attempt to insult you and nor does it make me 'feel any better' (why the hell would it?)
It seems to be assumed that I'm some religious fundie nutcase when I'm actually a scientist. My views are based on science and ethics as opposed to 'what dur bah-bile tellz me!' My arguments also come from ethics - see the hypocratic oath above and I have studied this issue for quite a while.
A woman's 'choice' about pregnancy is non-existent. One does not 'choose' to become pregnant. - if I choose to not want one of my children tomorrow it is not right for me to kill him - even if I have 'authority' over him.
Phototoxin wrote:Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics. Infact I need to submit my proposed research to an ethics committee soon.
I'm not for controlling women or telling others how to live their lives. That is a false pretext. I don't see how you can offer liberty yet at the same time deprive an unborn child of its own liberty to live. Finding my view repugnant is your own prerogative. I might disagree with what you say. I don't dispute that you are allowed to say it, nor do I attempt to insult you and nor does it make me 'feel any better' (why the hell would it?)
It seems to be assumed that I'm some religious fundie nutcase when I'm actually a scientist. My views are based on science and ethics as opposed to 'what dur bah-bile tellz me!' My arguments also come from ethics - see the hypocratic oath above and I have studied this issue for quite a while.
A woman's 'choice' about pregnancy is non-existent. One does not 'choose' to become pregnant. - if I choose to not want one of my children tomorrow it is not right for me to kill him - even if I have 'authority' over him.
You don't choose to become pregnant? So all impregnation is totally without the mother consent?
biccat wrote:FWIW someone like Joe Biden or Kucinich would be a better example of a political idiot, but not being Conservative, they're off limits. (Plus, they think infanticide is OK!)
On topic, I wonder how so many people actually call themselves pro-choice. The only recent politician who wasn't (at least visibly) pro-abortion was B.J. Clinton with his "safe, legal, and rare" statement.
Pro-choice isn't the same thing as pro-abortion. I'm also not sure where you get that infanticide is ok or that Biden and Kucinich have been off limits to criticism.
First, I never said that they were the same thing. There are some people who are pro-choice (e.g. the 42nd president) and there are some who are pro-abortion (e.g. some feminists, and some who are posting in this thread).
Second, the position has been taken (again, by some) that a child is alive after the 24th week. I have not seen any serious discussion to limit abortion past this point. Therefore, these people are supporting the killing of an unborn child. Killing babies = infanticide. That's O.K. tho, because the Supreme Court in Roe basically acknowledged that abortion was murder, but that there was a right to so murder, so you're in good company.
Third, a statement was made that a poster was wrong for agreeing with Sarah Palin on the abortion issue. I asked why this was so, and was told that she is such an idiot that (presumably) anyone who agrees with her on anything is wrong.
In contrast, I pointed out that Kucinich and Biden are both idiots, yet those who agree with their positions (note that Kucinich is pro-infanticide, believing that life begins at conception, but that taking of that life to prevent unwanted pregnancies is allowable) are not similarly derided.
I can accept that some people believe that life begins at birth/some discreet point, and that they would allow abortions to that point. I cannot accept that some people would acknowledge life begins and would still allow abortions after that point. That is morally reprehensible.
Phototoxin wrote:Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics. Infact I need to submit my proposed research to an ethics committee soon.
I'm not for controlling women or telling others how to live their lives. That is a false pretext. I don't see how you can offer liberty yet at the same time deprive an unborn child of its own liberty to live. Finding my view repugnant is your own prerogative. I might disagree with what you say. I don't dispute that you are allowed to say it, nor do I attempt to insult you and nor does it make me 'feel any better' (why the hell would it?)
It seems to be assumed that I'm some religious fundie nutcase when I'm actually a scientist. My views are based on science and ethics as opposed to 'what dur bah-bile tellz me!' My arguments also come from ethics - see the hypocratic oath above and I have studied this issue for quite a while.
A woman's 'choice' about pregnancy is non-existent. One does not 'choose' to become pregnant. - if I choose to not want one of my children tomorrow it is not right for me to kill him - even if I have 'authority' over him.
You don't choose to become pregnant? So all impregnation is totally without the mother consent?
No you can 'try' to become pregnant, you can have artificial/assistive reproductive methods used or you could be raped. Pregnancy may occur. But a woman doesn't wake up and say 'I choose to become pregnant *grits teeth* *ding* There!'
Choices can be made (with the first two) or can be forced (with rape) but pregnancy is the result of the action. Nonetheless the child's life is now in the care of the mother and shouldn't be killed because it is 'unwanted'. Yet this is sadly the case in the majority of abortions in the UK. And as I said before it is dangerous as it can lead to a mentality that 'unwanted' human life is disposable.
Second, the position has been taken (again, by some) that a child is alive after the 24th week. I have not seen any serious discussion to limit abortion past this point. Therefore, these people are supporting the killing of an unborn child. Killing babies = infanticide. That's O.K. tho, because the Supreme Court in Roe basically acknowledged that abortion was murder, but that there was a right to so murder, so you're in good company.
Thats because its the fething legal limit thats why, how can you possibly limit something more then making it illegal. Are you really this thick, or do you refuse to accept reality
Second, the position has been taken (again, by some) that a child is alive after the 24th week. I have not seen any serious discussion to limit abortion past this point. Therefore, these people are supporting the killing of an unborn child. Killing babies = infanticide. That's O.K. tho, because the Supreme Court in Roe basically acknowledged that abortion was murder, but that there was a right to so murder, so you're in good company.
Thats because its the fething legal limit thats why, how can you possibly limit something more then making it illegal. Are you really this thick, or do you refuse to accept reality
I think he's reffering to special cases where an abortion has to be performed in order to avoid complications for the mother, such as her being too young to safely carry the child (or the child being born with a crippling condition, thoughI don't know what US law says on this point). If that is what he is arguing, then it's really weighing up the value of killing the infant (if we are all agreed it is an unborn child by this point) in order to save the mother or risk losing them both.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phototoxin wrote: Yet this is sadly the case in the majority of abortions in the UK. And as I said before it is dangerous as it can lead to a mentality that 'unwanted' human life is disposable.
I believe there is a limit on when abortion can be carried out even in cases of rape. Abortions can not be carried out after a certain period regardless of whether the child is simply 'unwanted'. This is not the issue here, your issue is that you refuse to accept the legal decision on when the act becomes illegal, which is fine and encourages debate. But don't argue around it.
Second, the position has been taken (again, by some) that a child is alive after the 24th week. I have not seen any serious discussion to limit abortion past this point. Therefore, these people are supporting the killing of an unborn child. Killing babies = infanticide. That's O.K. tho, because the Supreme Court in Roe basically acknowledged that abortion was murder, but that there was a right to so murder, so you're in good company.
Thats because its the fething legal limit thats why, how can you possibly limit something more then making it illegal. Are you really this thick, or do you refuse to accept reality
I think he's reffering to special cases where an abortion has to be performed in order to avoid complications for the mother, such as her being too young to safely carry the child (or the child being born with a crippling condition, thoughI don't know what US law says on this point). If that is what he is arguing, then it's really weighing up the value of killing the infant (if we are all agreed it is an unborn child by this point) in order to save the mother or risk losing them both.
Phototoxin wrote: Yet this is sadly the case in the majority of abortions in the UK. And as I said before it is dangerous as it can lead to a mentality that 'unwanted' human life is disposable.
I believe there is a limit on when abortion can be carried out even in cases of rape. Abortions can not be carried out after a certain period regardless of whether the child is simply 'unwanted'. This is not the issue here, your issue is that you refuse to accept the legal decision on when the act becomes illegal, which is fine and encourages debate. But don't argue around it.
There is no restriction for when the baby has 'defects' such as Down's syndrome. While I doubt the occur later than 24 weeks (since most abortions are 1st trimester) the possiblity is still there. Also yes there is no limit on a life saving procedure which I'm not against and in that case I think only nutjobs would be against it!
The unintended abortion is in this case an unfortunate side effect of treatment.
To your statment at hand - yes it may be the law and yes I refuse it as I don't accept it and believe it is ethically wrong based on the information that I have and know to be true. I'm not intending to argue 'around it' and have attempted to demonstrate why this belief is accurate and why the law is unethical if not immoral. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right as I have mentioned. (Similarly because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.)
Also can I just say that the fact we've had a near 12 page interweb discussion on abortion without flame wars, trolling and mostly without ad hominem is probably a credit to the fact that dakka is one of the more sensible forums online.
Phototoxin wrote:There is no restriction for when the baby has 'defects' such as Down's syndrome. While I doubt the occur later than 24 weeks (since most abortions are 1st trimester) the possiblity is still there. Also yes there is no limit on a life saving procedure which I'm not against and in that case I think only nutjobs would be against it!
The unintended abortion is in this case an unfortunate side effect of treatment.
I assume this is directed at my comment towards youbedead? If so, yes. The 'limit' on abortion in some countries (not sure about UK) doesn't apply when there is evidence of serious disabilties. Some of these are challenging and impair learning abilities ect, and some are downright horrific. One case where the infant was in constant pain due to nerve disorder, a soft wind was akin to being hit by a flamethrower. I read through an interesting case in Australian Law on a civil case where the claimant was arguing that if the doctor had not been negligent in informing the patient of the child having a condition (can't remember the specifics, but it crippled the child immensely) then the parent would have opted for abortion. This isn't what you might think though, the plaintiff was the child in question (who was in excrutiating pain) and was suing the doctor so that they had to provide for costs inflicted by her condition.
The judges sided against it (in appeal), as they decided there is simply no way for a court of law to decide whether a life in constant pain can be 'measured' against non-existence/oblivion, it extends (quite simply) outside of their jurisdiction. Very fascinating stuff (especially the opinion of the dissenting judge).
As to the 'life-saving' procedure, you then have to define 'life-saving'. Complications doesn't always mean death, it can also mean crippling (very serious in some cases, but not all life threatening) or just having the risk of death present.
To your statment at hand - yes it may be the law and yes I refuse it as I don't accept it and believe it is ethically wrong based on the information that I have and know to be true. I'm not intending to argue 'around it' and have attempted to demonstrate why this belief is accurate and why the law is unethical if not immoral. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right as I have mentioned. (Similarly because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.)
I know, I was asking you to argue with the law. Not the issue of 'consenting to pregnancy'.
Also can I just say that the fact we've had a near 12 page interweb discussion on abortion without flame wars, trolling and mostly without ad hominem is probably a credit to the fact that dakka is one of the more sensible forums online.
Second, the position has been taken (again, by some) that a child is alive after the 24th week. I have not seen any serious discussion to limit abortion past this point. Therefore, these people are supporting the killing of an unborn child. Killing babies = infanticide. That's O.K. tho, because the Supreme Court in Roe basically acknowledged that abortion was murder, but that there was a right to so murder, so you're in good company.
Thats because its the fething legal limit thats why, how can you possibly limit something more then making it illegal. Are you really this thick, or do you refuse to accept reality
I think he's reffering to special cases where an abortion has to be performed in order to avoid complications for the mother, such as her being too young to safely carry the child (or the child being born with a crippling condition, thoughI don't know what US law says on this point). If that is what he is arguing, then it's really weighing up the value of killing the infant (if we are all agreed it is an unborn child by this point) in order to save the mother or risk losing them both.
Phototoxin wrote: Yet this is sadly the case in the majority of abortions in the UK. And as I said before it is dangerous as it can lead to a mentality that 'unwanted' human life is disposable.
I believe there is a limit on when abortion can be carried out even in cases of rape. Abortions can not be carried out after a certain period regardless of whether the child is simply 'unwanted'. This is not the issue here, your issue is that you refuse to accept the legal decision on when the act becomes illegal, which is fine and encourages debate. But don't argue around it.
There is no restriction for when the baby has 'defects' such as Down's syndrome. While I doubt the occur later than 24 weeks (since most abortions are 1st trimester) the possiblity is still there. Also yes there is no limit on a life saving procedure which I'm not against and in that case I think only nutjobs would be against it!
The unintended abortion is in this case an unfortunate side effect of treatment.
To your statment at hand - yes it may be the law and yes I refuse it as I don't accept it and believe it is ethically wrong based on the information that I have and know to be true. I'm not intending to argue 'around it' and have attempted to demonstrate why this belief is accurate and why the law is unethical if not immoral. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right as I have mentioned. (Similarly because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.)
Also can I just say that the fact we've had a near 12 page interweb discussion on abortion without flame wars, trolling and mostly without ad hominem is probably a credit to the fact that dakka is one of the more sensible forums online.
Well then, that makes a bit more sense. Also sorry for the hostility. It does beg the question though, is a life of eternal pain better then no life at all
Phototoxin wrote:Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics.
Really? That is surprising, though I suppose 'study' can be broadly interpreted.
Phototoxin wrote:It seems to be assumed that I'm some religious fundie nutcase when I'm actually a scientist
You can be religious and be a scientist. Science doesn't automatically mean having a balanced or reasonable world view, it also doesn't mean someone is a good scientist either. Bob Jones University teaches science and they think the world is 6000 years old. You could be a fundie nutcase and a scientist. If you are an atheist or one of the myriad of religions that isn't one of the Religions of the Book I would be surprised, but it is certainly possible.
The problem just isn't one of science either, so approaching it solely from that perspective is also one of fail.
Phototoxin wrote:Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics. Infact I need to submit my proposed research to an ethics committee soon.
...
The debate surrounding the Abortion Act 1967 is one of the most important examples in modern times of medical ethics being used in the development of public policy.
Phototoxin wrote:
Well what is the case? – you’ve still not given a clear definition. Why is 24 weeks a bad time to kill a fetus but 13 is not? Waht about 14,15,16 weeks? 2days? 8 days? 75 days? It’s illegal to kill both a 24 week old baby and a 13 week old baby but not when its in the womb - why? Enlighten me.
I'm not particularly interested in a precise time frame, and really you shouldn't be either. We can talk about mental development and all that sort of specificity, but that involves deeply technical neuroscientific arguments that are best presented via well researched journal articles and the like. This is an internet forum, and not one with an academic bias; for the purposes of this conversation its best to simply accept that a specific time from conception is arbitrary, because it is, to some extent.
You'll also note that I've never made a claim about a specific time from conception, so right now you're simply talking past me. This is not only exceedingly rude, it points to a sort of self-righteous conviction that leaves me with the feeling that you're simply carrying this conversation in order to deepen your conviction; which means I'm wasting my time to an even greater extent than is normal for the internet.
Phototoxin wrote:
Who gives her the ‘unique authortiy’? – she has a unique RESPONSIBILITY, but not authortity. Parents are responsible for their children, they do not have roman-era type authorthty to kill (or sell them as was also possible then then)
Responsibility and authority are two sides of the same coin. If one is responsible for something, say admitting people to see the President, then they also have authority over who is admitted to see the President. Regardless, you're equivocating again. A fetus is not a child, it is a fetus. Women have a unique responsibility for the fetus that they carry, and this responsibility is given by biological necessity. She can take its life if she so chooses because it is not an independent life, as a child is, and therefore presents her with a unique burden. It would be preferable for her to be able to give the fetus up, but that simply isn't possible.
Phototoxin wrote:
If an adult has motor neuron disease and has no way of communication and a person is their designated carer, the patient is uniquely dependent on their carer. By your logic the carer has a unique authority and so should be able to kill the adult.
No, they are not. In that instance the designated caretaker could seek a replacement for himself. This cannot be done with a fetus.
At this point you're equivocating again as I clearly stated that the inability to transfer care of the fetus was the crux of the unique dependency. Please stop misrepresenting my position if you are able to do so.
Phototoxin wrote:
So what you’re saying is that the mother can choose to kill her own child because she doesn’t want to care for it. Hence if i have an 8 year old child and he becomes tedious I will just shoot him, since clearly I have the right not to care for him.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Stop equivocating.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phototoxin wrote:
It seems to be assumed that I'm some religious fundie nutcase when I'm actually a scientist. My views are based on science and ethics as opposed to 'what dur bah-bile tellz me!' My arguments also come from ethics - see the hypocratic oath above and I have studied this issue for quite a while.
Interestingly you're using the standard Christian interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath, which is really only relevant to the the original text, and only if you consider a fetus to be a child.
The classic version helps your position directly, but many institutions no longer use it.
There are many modern versions of the oath, and many of them don't help your position at all. If you study medical ethics, then you should be well aware of this.
Then there's the other oaths used by other medical schools, like the Oath of Maimonides, which would take far longer to cover.
In any case, simply saying that two versions of the Oath support your position isn't really a very good argument, nor is it at all indicating of any general agreement with medical ethics as a whole. Again, if you study medical ethics, then this should be something that's obvious. There is more to any given ethical field than that with which you agree.
Phototoxin wrote:Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics. Infact I need to submit my proposed research to an ethics committee soon.
...
The debate surrounding the Abortion Act 1967 is one of the most important examples in modern times of medical ethics being used in the development of public policy.
Apparently you think it is worthless, though.
Of course he does. He you were pro life you would too. Personally, anything discussed by politicians can't be cited for anything...intelligent.
youbedead wrote:Thats because its the fething legal limit thats why, how can you possibly limit something more then making it illegal. Are you really this thick, or do you refuse to accept reality
Not sure where you get the idea that there's a legal limit on abortion. Only about 13 states in the U.S. limit 'late term abortions.' There is no right for a fetus that attaches once the child is viable, the only protection it has is state law.
Also, the exception for late term abortions is life or health, which includes mental health. Some doctors take the position that a mother saying "I don't want this baby" is sufficient to indicate that continued pregnancy is a threat to the mother's health.
So, since you were wrong about the "legal limit," which is it for you?
This isn't what you might think though, the plaintiff was the child in question (who was in excrutiating pain) and was suing the doctor so that they had to provide for costs inflicted by her condition.
Yes I have heard of similar cases. However without medical intervention at all she would have had this child and had the moral obligation to care for it. (unless we abandon our sick and leave the young outside overnight to see if they are strong enough) The fact that the medics didn't 'pick up on it' is not good, but the child is her responsibility. She obviously felt entitled to terminate the child on the basis that it was going to suffer. But who are we to judge others lives? If I think starving africans are suffering I don't have the right to kill them to end their suffering, rather the morally correct decision is to aid them and relieve as much of their suffering as possible without killing them.
Really? That is surprising, though I suppose 'study' can be broadly interpreted.
You're clearly attempting to being antagonistic and trying to bait. Fail more.
The debate surrounding the Abortion Act 1967 is one of the most important examples in modern times of medical ethics being used in the development of public policy.
Apparently you think it is worthless, though.
Killkrazy where have I said that I thought it was 'worthless' ? All I said was that I wasn't going to re-read since I'd read it before recently.
I'm not particularly interested in a precise time frame, and really you shouldn't be either.
Why shouldn't I be concerned with when a foetus 'becomes' a human/person wiht rights ? That is the crux of the argument. I say from day 0, you say the law says week 24. But not for downs babies.... double standards?
No, they are not. In that instance the designated caretaker could seek a replacement for himself. This cannot be done with a fetus.
That is not the foetus' fault however. When it is born the foetus can be left for adoption or in the care of the state.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Stop equivocating.
Then be more clear.
There are many modern versions of the oath, and many of them don't help your position at all. If you study medical ethics, then you should be well aware of this.
My point is that if the Greeks knew this to be true and morally wrong, then how come our modern doctors don't? Or as you say more modern versions have been revised to exclude this to facilitate abortion?
Phototoxin wrote:It seems to be assumed that I'm some religious fundie nutcase when I'm actually a scientist
By their deeds shall you judge them.
It is assumed because you are acting like one. Nobody this entire thread has said that this is an easy thing to dicuss, or not a heartbreaking decision for a woman, or a simple black and white issue. Nobody at all except you and your ilk.
The real world has very few black and white cases, there are a million shades of grey. The only people in my experience who deal with black and white are "fundies" and soldiers. Soldiers by training and necessity because you cant reflect on if you are involved in a moral war, or if your enemy deserves to die, or if he has kids, or if he had a bad childhood when you are required to shoot him in the face before he tosses his grenade. And fundies, because they absolutely will not ever change their mind no matter what evidence is presented to them. Nobody has made this an entirely black and white issue other than you. I am pro choice, but if new evidence comes out that says a foetus is fully in charge of its faculties at 18 weeks, then gak, im sure almost everyone here would say "yes, we need to look at the law again, maybe move it back to 14 weeks?" or whatever. This was discussed in Parliament and thats what happens, people gather their information, then come to a well rounded and logical consensus as possible.
You ARE a fundie, you are also incredibly offensive but can get away with it because of your faith choices. You have basically been equivocating the entire thread, and painting people that disagree with you as "murderers" or wholly immoral. Thats why I have little interest in speaking with you, because the kid gloves they treat people like you with while you are busy smearing everyone else as immoral genocidal murderers frustrates me utterly.
You absolutely are a "fundie" regardless of your profession.
Phototoxin wrote:Er actually I do study a lot of medical ethics. Infact I need to submit my proposed research to an ethics committee soon.
...
The debate surrounding the Abortion Act 1967 is one of the most important examples in modern times of medical ethics being used in the development of public policy.
Apparently you think it is worthless, though.
Of course he does. He you were pro life you would too. Personally, anything discussed by politicians can't be cited for anything...intelligent.
The debate surrounding the Abortion Act involved churchmen, philosophers and ethicists, medical people, and the general public, not just politicians.
There really is no point in someone continually asking "why this" and "why that" when the reply is that the answers are in the history of the formation of the Act, and he refuses to read about it.
mattyrm wrote:
You ARE a fundie, you are also incredibly offensive but can get away with it because of your faith choices. You have basically been equivocating the entire thread, and painting people that disagree with you as "murderers" or wholly immoral. Thats why I have little interest in speaking with you, because the kid gloves they treat people like you with while you are busy smearing everyone else as immoral genocidal murderers frustrates me utterly.
You absolutely are a "fundie" regardless of your profession.
Frankly you're full os gak Matty. He's arguing individual life begins at conception. Thats science. You can't change that. You can argue when wedo something or not, but get off your fething high horse.
Stragnely enough, they have one of those auto ladder things stucked in a corner of the building's lobby. For those not familiar its a raisable platform attached to an electric cart, kind of like a miniature cherry picker. I so want to hijack it and go berserk through downtown. Just saying...
In the interest of clarity I should note that, although I believe individual life begins at conception, I'm very comfortable with vthe intersection of viability and Matty's pain threshold. My personal views are anti abortion but I support the law at the above nexus.
Frazzled wrote:He's arguing individual life begins at conception. Thats science. You can't change that.
I believe that a significant part of this and other "abortion yes/no/when/how" debate is centred around that very point. Not everyone agrees that "life" starts at conception. The process that produces "life" may begin there, but how we choose to define "life" varies, just as many such nebulous terms have different interpretations.
Some words have different meanings in "real life" and in scientific language.
Phototoxin wrote:
Why shouldn't I be concerned with when a foetus 'becomes' a human/person wiht rights ? That is the crux of the argument. I say from day 0, you say the law says week 24. But not for downs babies.... double standards?
No, as I said, I'm not making a specific temporal claim, so you're again misrepresenting my position when you say "week 24". If you're not going to approach this honestly, then again, you're wasting my time.
Either way, the reason the specific date is not of interest is because it would take a research paper in order to support the argument properly. Otherwise it just a tennis match of "I believe X", which is really, really boring.
Phototoxin wrote:
That is not the foetus' fault however. When it is born the foetus can be left for adoption or in the care of the state.
There's two potential refutations here.
1: It is the fetus' fault because if the fetus is person it is at fault for being itself, with all that it entails; just as a scientist is at fault for being a scientist.
2: If fault can only arise from choice, and the fetus cannot choose, then fault itself is irrelevant and we are left with the mere reality of the matter; meaning that the woman bears the responsibility and is still afforded a unique authority.
As you've already stated that no one chooses to be pregnant I imagine that the latter argument is more forceful, as it presents the situation as one which must be accepted and dealt with by choice, even if it was not the result of choice to begin with. As such, simply stating that it is isn't the fault of the fetus, or of the mother, is irrelevant; placing us right back where we started.
Phototoxin wrote:
Then be more clear.
I can't be. I mean, I've explicitly claimed the exact opposite of what you're stating as my position, which again tells me that you're only interested in deepening your own conviction.
Phototoxin wrote:
My point is that if the Greeks knew this to be true and morally wrong, then how come our modern doctors don't? Or as you say more modern versions have been revised to exclude this to facilitate abortion?
That's a terrible argument. You're either begging the question by assuming that abortion is wrong, or appealing to some imagined authority embodied by the Greeks. The Greeks also believed in slavery, so we could then take your reasoning and presume that if they knew it wasn't wrong, that we're foolish to presume it is.
Frazzled wrote:in a corner of the building's lobby. For those not familiar its a raisable platform attached to an electric cart, kind of like a miniature cherry picker. I so want to hijack it and go berserk through downtown. Just saying...
And they said you couldn't improve on the church tower...
There really is no point in someone continually asking "why this" and "why that" when the reply is that the answers are in the history of the formation of the Act, and he refuses to read about it.
Do you mean the supposed high numbers of illegal abotions and so by decriminalising it and ensuring better healthcare for women when would hopefully reduce it when infact the number of abortions has skyrocketed despite needing referral from two doctors on the grounds of physical or mental trauma. That debate?
Also you weren't clear the first time and you keep redefining and essentially 'moving the goalposts' when you initially said to 'read the act' (which I did before embarking on this thread!) but now are saying 'read around the act' All of which I've done before!
Yet because I've not come to the same conclusion as you there's somehow 'no point' in continuing to discuss this?
That I fail to understand. I've read I've thought, I disagree. I express my points and defend them. I have come to a different conclusion to you but that is fine. I think you're wrong. But I know that its ok for me to think that and for you to think that I'm wrong as we thankfully have the right to our opinions.
Frazzled wrote:He's arguing individual life begins at conception. Thats science. You can't change that.
I believe that a significant part of this and other "abortion yes/no/when/how" debate is centred around that very point. Not everyone agrees that "life" starts at conception. The process that produces "life" may begin there, but how we choose to define "life" varies, just as many such nebulous terms have different interpretations.
Some words have different meanings in "real life" and in scientific language.
Fair points. His argument I think is that individual life begins at that point. Scientifically thats a correct statement. You can agree at that point without connating morality to it. Once the DNA is separate then its a separate living organism. Of course so is a cancer cell and all for nuking those buggers.
What it does do is open up the ethics debate, which has what made this thread interesting, until now anyway. Now I see Dogma is makeing his usual comments because someone disagree with him, so this thread is crapped out now.
No, as I said, I'm not making a specific temporal claim, so you're again misrepresenting my position when you say "week 24". If you're not going to approach this honestly, then again, you're wasting my time.
Be more clear, as everytime i misunderstand you you use it to discredit my 'honesty'
Either way, the reason the specific date is not of interest is because it would take a research paper in order to support the argument properly. Otherwise it just a tennis match of "I believe X", which is really, really boring.
It's irrelevalent if life beings at conception which it factually does.
it is the fetus' fault because if the fetus is person it is at fault for being itself, with all that it entails; just as a scientist is at fault for being a scientist.
You cannot be at fault for being what you are as you've not done anything to do that. A scientist generally chooses to be a scientist. A foetus does not. One is a fact, the other is a carreer choice. A foetus in the context of what we are discussing is a human foetus. A scientist is merely a job description.
2: If fault can only arise from choice, and the fetus cannot choose, then fault itself is irrelevant and we are left with the mere reality of the matter; meaning that the woman bears the responsibility and is still afforded a unique authority.
There is no fault so it is not even irrelevalent. The woman doesn't have the authority to kill another human being's life, even if it is inside her.
You're either begging the question by assuming that abortion is wrong
Well it is wrong simply because if the willful termination of innocent life with no lifesaving purpose to the mother is not wrong, then why is murdering an adult wrong? It's a case of double standards. Just because a living human is small, or less developed physically and/or mentally doesn't make it right to kill them for any reason other than as an unintentional consequence of saving another person.
Glad I've been to busy to see most of this. Typical abortion thread chock full of straw men, moral grandstanding and the most ludicrous comparisons. Yes, aborting a foetus is just like wanting to shoot an 8 year old through the head. This is why I can't stand the pro-life mob, positions advances are ludicrously emotive to the point where it's unworthy of debate.
Here's my view. Abortion isn't a nice thing, but on reflection the rights of the adult come before that of an unborn foetus, particularly in the early stages. There's an obvious argument against late-term abortion and I think the limits are fine as they stand.
My real beef with the pro-life bunch is that they want to impose their beliefs upon others and restrict their freedom of choice. Abortion should largely be a decision for the individual. Some people will be for, and others against, people should be allowed freedom of choice. No one will force abortions on anyone, and no one should prevent someone having an abortion. The issue is too personal and complicated for these sorts of blanket approaches.
It always interests me the number of men wading in and telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Frankly it's the woman giving birth, they have to carry the child to term and deal with that and the consequences of raising a child. Or the casual suggestion is that they 'give it away' once it is born. The emotional stresses of carrying an unwanted child to term and then being forced to either raise it or give it away are enormous, no one should be glib about forcing this upon women as a "solution". How in particular can a man, who can never even hope to experience pregnancy themselves, lecture women on what is reasonable to expect of them amazes me.
The other thing is that it's so very easy to be pro-life and lecture others until you are in the very terrifying situation of being pregnant and unable to cope with having a child. Why do pro-lifers think their beliefs some how blanket override the judgement and individual circumstances of others? It's also interesting that a lot of pro-life comes from far-right religious teaching, which often is paradoxically in support of the hopelessly optimistic abstinence-only sex education and restriction of contraception. Thus they help create the very circumstances that lead to unwanted pregnancies. There's also the strong anti-sex attitudes from a lot of pro-life material, sex is shameful and women who opt for abortions are described as not understanding what they are doing or that they are being irresponsible. If you feel you are incapable of raising a child and don't have the finances to give them a worthwhile life then having an abortion may well be the responsible action. What is irresponsible is to knowingly bring a child into a situation where they will suffer mentally and physically, won't be cared for properly and won't be loved. It's a complicated thing, people should have the right to choose for themselves and the pro-life people shouldn't be sticking their oar in trying to take their freedom of choice away.
The system we have works in what is a very difficult and complicated situation for parents and unborn child. It has generally the right balance between the rights of the individual to control their body and the rights of an unborn child past a certain point to be born. The pro-life mob seek to take away freedom of choice from the individual. By all means be 'pro life' or 'pro choice' in your own doings and apply this should you ever be in the situation if dealing with a difficult pregnancy. But seeking to impose your moral beliefs upon everyone else and take away their freedom of choice is wrong.
Conception isn't a point in time, it is a process that takes several days.
A blastula is not an individual life. It is part of its mother. Even more so is the foetus, which is linked by the placenta.
Abortion rates haven't been increasing since 1973. They went up at first, for obvious reasons, then declined, and have shown recent increases between 2001 and 2006.
.... I'm a bit confused as whose balls we're now on..or something...
..man, the things you wind up typing eh ?
... It would appear, surprisingly enough, that the thread has now moved onto more general discussion of/about abortion itself, rather than the act refereed to in the first post. This particular direction, whilst understandable, takes us down roads or dances we've done innumerable times before and don't really look like they're going to any new ground or consensus, other than generating a, rapidly growing, amount of alerts and complaints, so I think it's best we leave this here before things descend into just/more insults and the like.
(note* 
Also can I just say that the fact we've had a near 12 page interweb discussion on abortion without flame wars, trolling and mostly without ad hominem is probably a credit to the fact that dakka is one of the more sensible forums online. 
