Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't accept that the foetus is a human life

Do you not accept that it is human or do you not accept that it is alive?

I do not accept that a foetus is a human. I believe it is an entity that has the capacity to become a human and gradually grows up to fulfil that capacity during gestation.

A foetus is alive in the sense that my foot is alive. If I cut my foot off it would die. If the foetus is deprived of the protection of the mother’s body, it will die.

The 24 week limit (used as a time limit in most countries that allow abortion) was chosen partly because after this time the foetus shows signs of mentation and begins to have some capability of survival independent of its mother. In other words, around the 24 week time, the foetus changes from being a pre-human foetus to being a potentially premature baby.

biccat wrote:[
1) It gives women an out from pregnancy that is unavailable to a man.

2) There is no absolute morality without a moral authority. But "don't murder people" is a pretty widely accepted moral tenet.

1) There are lots of birth control features that only work within specific genders. Saying that abortion is discriminatory because it doesn't work for both genders is the equivalent of saying that birth control pills, morning after pills and condoms are discriminatory.

2) I would even question that. Like I said, if you let me screw with the circumstances, I can create a situation where it is moral to torture and murder a 3 year old child. Ignoring that, you didn't say 'murder' originally, you said 'kill'. While it may seem like semantics there is a big difference between murdering someone and killing someone. All murdering is killing, but not all killing is murder.

Ulitmately we enter the realms of philosophy when we get to this point, who decides what "life" is etc etc

The simple fact is, certainly in the UK, the law is the law for logical reasons and I agree with it.

If our knowledge of biology and science deems by demonstable means that a foetus can feel pain at a certain amount of weeks, then by all means change the law and make it so that the procedure can only be carried out before said time.

But as it stands, as far as we can ascertain with common fething sense, a ten week old foetus is the size of a frigging walnut, does not have the cognitive skills, nerve endings, or mental faculties of a living breathing girl or woman, and as such, cannot have as many rights. Logic dictates that we preserve the feelings and wishes of the living breathing person stood right there in front of us.

Do we not have a moral duty to attempt to stop human suffering? So lets stop some, not worry about stopping the suffering of that which it is 99.99% certain has no ability to feel any suffering at all. Foetus cannot suffer, human being can.

On a related note i saw some awesome fething propaganda. I was given a pamphlet on the campus at UCSB, and the pro-life pamphlet had a "12 week" foetus on the front with more teeth than I fething do!

It was also wearing a fez and reading a home bargains catalogue. (Not really)

Manchu wrote:No, I'm pointing out that the loophole is created by the potential criminal law analysis not the potential abortion exception analysis.

You're going to have to enlighten me as to the difference between the two. Or are you saying that rape should be differently defined for abortion law?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Ulitmately we enter the realms of philosophy when we get to this point, who decides what "life" is etc etc...

If I kill you without causing you to suffer, am I doing wrong?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Manchu wrote:No, I'm pointing out that the loophole is created by the potential criminal law analysis not the potential abortion exception analysis.

You're going to have to enlighten me as to the difference between the two. Or are you saying that rape should be differently defined for abortion law?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Ulitmately we enter the realms of philosophy when we get to this point, who decides what "life" is etc etc...

If I kill you without causing you to suffer, am I doing wrong?

Yes, however this wouldnt happen because I would kill you first easily.

@Melissia: A gestating foetus without apparent genetic defects can develop into a child that expresses them after birth. Quite apart from genetic defects, children obviously can suffer from non-congenital diseases or debilitating accidents that make caring for them intolerably expensive. Again, every child is factually very expensive to her/his parents or the government. And every child is potentially even more expensive if she/he develops health problems.

A child that is known to fall into this "really expensive" category before birth can conveniently and legally be terminated -- or, if your prefer, the development of some tissue into a child can be terminated. Whether we're talking about a child or some tissue, the calculus is the same: "I am willing to pay $X for this child and not two times that." Well, what about the people who don't even want to pay $X? The argument in favor of aborting children/proto-children with genetic defects because they are expensive is very similar to the argument in favor of aborting them because their quality of life will not measure up to someone else's standard. They both ultimately lead to the same conclusion: abortion for any reason within a certain time frame.

Which is what we already have. No need to even bring up those poor ones who would have lived with congenital diseases or defects.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Or are you saying that rape should be differently defined for abortion law?

I think this is the only practical solution, which leads to a loophole -- and from there to the current proposed legislation.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Ulitmately we enter the realms of philosophy when we get to this point, who decides what "life" is etc etc...

If I kill you without causing you to suffer, am I doing wrong?

The point is that many people consider it to not be wrong because what is being destroyed is not "alive" in the sense that a fully formed human (or indeed any other animal) is. Trillions of pounds is spent to help wipe out bacterial strains, fungi, viruses etc... all are "alive" (although that is arguable in the sense of viruses), but not alive enough to be worthy of any remorse or penalty for their destruction.

Is it wrong to wipe out a bunch of cells with no higher function?

I say no, it is not. Even if that bunch of cells may one day go on to become a sentient creature. To my mind, it is no more a crime than using the morning after pill, condoms, or any other birth control measure.

The point is that at a certain point (which is generally well established), that bunch of cells has developed enough that you are no longer destroying "just a bunch of cells", but are killing an independent life form. Once that transformation has occured, I (and others) do not believe that termination should be permitted unless the continuation of pregnancy causes terminal threats to the mother.

Manchu wrote:@Melissia: A gestating foetus without apparent genetic defects can develop into a child that expresses them after birth. Quite apart from genetic defects, children obviously can suffer from non-congenital diseases or debilitating accidents that make caring for them intolerably expensive. Again, every child is factually very expensive to her/his parents or the government. And every child is potentially even more expensive if she/he develops health problems.

Irrelevant. I did not ask what to do about defects which happen without being predicted and for which we have no preventative measures for, that is another topic entirely and is not connected to this one. Compare, for example, two natural disasters. One was a massive earthquake in a place not known for earthquakes, which caused untold damage. The other one was a hurricane, however by government law the denizens of the town are not allowed to build in such a way as to prevent the damage the hurricane would do. I am asking about government assistance for the latter, not the former, because it is entirely the government's fault.

When we do tests on children, the option of abortion is there if the tests reveal the child has a defect. The question I asked was that when tests are done that let us know of the defect in the early stages of pregnancy, and we find out that they are present and these defects will add substantial cost to the care of the child, who pays for it when the parents are not allowed to choose to not have the child?

mattyrm wrote:Yes, however this wouldnt happen because I would kill you first easily.

Why is it wrong to kill you if you don't suffer in doing so? I thought that was why it was fine to abort?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:The point is that at a certain point (which is generally well established), that bunch of cells has developed enough that you are no longer destroying "just a bunch of cells", but are killing an independent life form. Once that transformation has occured, I (and others) do not believe that termination should be permitted unless the continuation of pregnancy causes terminal threats to the mother.

By what measure is it independent?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:By what measure is it independent?

There are various standards for establishing when a foetus becomes "independent" and what it means and some, all or none are used in various legal systems throughout the world.

Take your pick.

Personally I use the standard established in UK law, which I think is reasonably sensible and I believe has been stated by KK prevoiusly.

SilverMK2 wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:By what measure is it independent?

There are various standards for establishing when a foetus becomes "independent" and what it means and some, all or none are used in various legal systems throughout the world.

Take your pick.

Personally I use the standard established in UK law, which I think is reasonably sensible and I believe has been stated by KK prevoiusly.

Okiedokie.

Assuming that abortion is illegal past the point of viability (except for life-of-the-mother), should it be illegal to induce labour?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Assuming that abortion is illegal past the point of viability (except for life-of-the-mother), should it be illegal to induce labour?

I don't see why it should be. Obvously there are medical reasons for and against it in various circumstances, but I would not think a blanket ban on it would achieve anything. Why would you suggest it be made illegal?

Because it's basically abortion by another name, as it is an intentional act that will lead to the death of what some people call a child.

fragging ninja'd!

Erm... do you have some kind of crazy American definition of induced labour that I am not aware of?

Induced labor used on a premature child and then letting it die on its own is abortion by another name. Don't mind me, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

Melissia wrote:The question I asked was that when tests are done that let us know of the defect in the early stages of pregnancy, and we find out that they are present and these defects will add substantial cost to the care of the child, who pays for it when the parents are not allowed to choose to not have the child?

To quote you, "irrelevant."

I don't accept that the foetus is a human life

Do you not accept that it is human or do you not accept that it is alive?

I do not accept that a foetus is a human. I believe it is an entity that has the capacity to become a human and gradually grows up to fulfil that capacity during gestation.

A foetus is alive in the sense that my foot is alive. If I cut my foot off it would die. If the foetus is deprived of the protection of the mother’s body, it will die.

Your foot has living cells, it in itself is alive although not a seperate living creature.
An adult/teenager/toddler/baby/neonatal/fetus/embryo/blastocyst is alive in that it it is a totally new and seperate creature to its mother, hence it has its own life. All that varies is size.

The 24 week limit (used as a time limit in most countries that allow abortion) was chosen partly because after this time the foetus shows signs of mentation and begins to have some capability of survival independent of its mother. In other words, around the 24 week time, the foetus changes from being a pre-human foetus to being a potentially premature baby.

Pre-human? Was it Klingon before it was human? It was entirely 'human' genetically speaking from its conception.

But as it stands, as far as we can ascertain with common fething sense, a ten week old foetus is the size of a frigging walnut, does not have the cognitive skills, nerve endings, or mental faculties of a living breathing girl or woman, and as such, cannot have as many rights. Logic dictates that we preserve the feelings and wishes of the living breathing person stood right there in front of us.

But as it stands, as far as we can ascertain with common fething sense, a mentally disabled person is BIGGER, does not have the cognitive skills, nerve endings, or mental faculties of a living breathing girl or woman, and as such, cannot have as many rights. Logic dictates that we preserve the feelings and wishes of the living breathing person stood right there in front of us?

Is he an Ork, size is everything? It's ok to kill people if they are really small?

Do we not have a moral duty to attempt to stop human suffering? So lets stop some, not worry about stopping the suffering of that which it is 99.99% certain has no ability to feel any suffering at all. Foetus cannot suffer, human being can.

Silent scream. Also to end suffering nuke the planet. No humans = no human suffering. Simple.

Manchu wrote:I don't think that parents should have a right to kill children who have genetic defects or other diseases. At what point something is a ball of sells instead of a child is another matter (I tend to agree with mattyrm on it but, sadly, technology has invalidated the faculty of common sense).
So you can care for the children with defects then, right? Or pay for it in the case of hte government.

Yes, we were all one genetic disorder away from abortion unless our parents were in a third world country or religious nuts.

In the uk 98% of pregnancies carrying a downs baby are terminated.

Recently a mother terminated twin boys because 'she wanted a girl'

In india desire to have boys means sex selective abortion takes place.

So its not just 'defects', it's gender too...

Would you suggest that all parents who produce children with Down should be forced to carry the child to term? What about Angelman syndrome? Or some other disease or genetic defect beyond their control? What about 48, XXYY syndrome? Turner syndrome? Leukemia? Uniparental disomy? Aneuploidy? One of the thousands of unknown and unnamed genetic defects? So who's going to pay for the care of all of these children with their genetic disorders, most of whom have learning disorders at the very LEAST and often have other physiological or psychological effects causing them to be unstable?

That's not to say that the actual tests on the baby's genetics themselves don't have a chance ot cause the child to miscarry (IE, abortion).

When we do tests on children, the option of abortion is there if the tests reveal the child has a defect. The question I asked was that when tests are done that let us know of the defect in the early stages of pregnancy, and we find out that they are present and these defects will add substantial cost to the care of the child, who pays for it when the parents are not allowed to choose to not have the child?

That leads down a slippery slope Melissa.

If you value people on their financial value then we need to grind up the homless to feed people. Also the old who don't contribute and the fething social welfare leeches. Clearly they are sub-human and should be exterminated. (sarcasm)

When I take over the world I will screen everyone and if they don’t possess functioning lac genes then I will cull them seeing as they have not caught up with the times. Also the blind, type 1 diabetics and people in wheel chairs – I don’t want to have to provide guide dogs, insulin or wheelchair ramps which are expensive.

Flippancy aside additionally who has the right to put a value on anyone else's life? We're all 'just a pile of cells' at the end of the day?

On topic it makes sense to be able to protect the unborn - we can protect a newborn with violence if necessary but yet if the same child is in a uterus it has no rights?

Melissia wrote:Induced labor used on a premature child and then letting it die on its own is abortion by another name. Don't mind me, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

In my experience that is not how it is used. I don't know what kind of problems you may have in America with your healthcare system (/insurance) vis a vis taking care of premature babies (either "natural" or induced") but in the UK they are kept alive for as long as practically possible or until it is able to function on its own.

Funnily enough I have 3 cousins who were premature (and I think one of them was induced) - just a random thought, not meaning to have any relation to the discussion.

I've not heard of inducing prematurely being used as a form of "late abortion" before though.

Edit: certainly not in professional healthcare anyway.

You're probably thinking of 'partial birth abortion'

If the child is born (defined by taking its own breath I think) then killing it after is murder, irrespective of your pro-life/choice views!

Good point, Phototoxin. Some cultures view raising a girl to be too expensive an investment relative to the payoff. In this case, the cost-prohibitive "genetic defect" is having two x chromosomes.

I guess the government could pay for raising all those girls. Oh wait, that's supposed to be an argument in favor of aborting them . . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This makes me think of a hypothetical:

Let's say that scientists do determine that specific and identifiable genetic sequence does determine whether a child is heterosexual or homosexual. Parents could then decide to abort children who are genetically homosexual.

Or how about we talk about genetic predispositions. What if a foetus is genetically predisposed to some congentital disease that only expresses after birth. Abort them, too, I guess.

Both decisions are currently legal in the US.

WARLORD TZOO wrote:First, consent does not exist in perpetuity. If you are having sex, and your partner tells you to stop, and you do not, it is rape, even if they previously said yes. Why should consent to sex equate to consent to pregnancy?

You're right that consent isn't perpetual, but there are situations where consent cannot be revoked, or is implied.

If you swim out to save a drowning person, the law can presume you've undertaken a duty to save that person. Once you've taken that duty, you can't abandon it without consequence.

Then there's the issue of general consent to lifesaving procedures that must be expressly revoked.

Or we can analyze the issue based on detrimental reliance of the fetus having an interest in providing life. Just like a doctor can't pull the plug on you, a mother shouldn't have the ability to unilaterally and unavoidably terminate a life.

WARLORD TZOO wrote:And in giving exceptions for rape, you're either forcing women make a charge against their rapists, which is something that they might well like to avoid given that it can be extremely traumatic and has an exceptionally low conviction rate (largely because in many instances it's simply hesaid-shesaid), or you're giving the law no real force, because any woman who wants an abortion can simply say that she was raped.

Yes, I am asking for at least an allegation of rape. I don't think that this is an unreasonable hurdle. Allegations that are provably false can be dealt with by law enforcement. But not guilty =/= provably false.

WARLORD TZOO wrote:Would it also not be government action to ban the pill?

Under my definition, this is not government action. Or more specifically, not government control over what you do with your body.

Lots of drugs, chemicals, and medical treatments are illegal to seek out, perform, or have performed on your body. Somehow abortion receives a free pass from ethical review. I'd be happy if people would at least acknowledge that abortion is a non-unique medical procedure and at least subject to SOME regulation, oversight, and informed consent.

But for some reason it is insisted that anything approaching ethical medical standards is illegal and/or irrational.

Well statistically <95% of criminals all have a certain multiplex of genes. I think we should pre-emptively imprison/cull people with this. It would stop a lot of the muder, rape and child abuse.

If You think that the nonsense propaganda video "silent scream" is valid, I can discount everything else you wrote.

And for the record, damn straight I think a parent should have the right to abort a downs baby, that's what I would do, no questions.

Unless YOU want to pay for looking after the fether.

When they atop sucking money out of my pocket, ill start being pro-life.

Phototoxin wrote:I think we should pre-emptively imprison/cull people with this. It would stop a lot of the muder, rape and child abuse.

Yep, one way or another.

Manchu wrote:To quote you, "irrelevant."

If you want to attempt that route of arguing, try also explaining why something is irrelevant after saying such, as I did. As it is, you are wrong, because what I stated was at the very core of the subject matter I brought up.

The two subject matters are different. One could easily argue that the government has no obligation to step in and support the victims of one catastrophe but they do have an obligation to step in and support the victims of the other through their outlawing the victims' own ability to prevent the disaster. It is very easy to argue that a government disallowing stone or brick homes and is responsible for the ensuing firestorm if the city catches on fire, for example, while it is not so easy to argue the government is responsible if the average person had a choice in the matter.

Not seen the silent scream. (assuming it was me you were referring to

And for the record, damn straight I think a parent should have the right to abort a downs baby, that's what I would do, no questions.

Then what's stopping the mother-state aborting the inferior children (jews, slovaks... oh wait some EVIL BASTARD ALREADY TIRED THAT!)

Unless YOU want to pay for looking after the fether.
When they atop sucking money out of my pocket, ill start being pro-life.

The love of money is the root of all evil? Are you the square?

If you put human life down as a financial line on a spread sheet then we are doomed.

Melissia wrote:As it is, you are wrong, because what I stated was at the very core of the subject matter I brought up.

All you are saying is that what you brought up is relevant and what I brought up is not. This is a problem with a lot of your posting.

It is very easy to argue that a government disallowing stone or brick homes and is responsible for the ensuing firestorm if the city catches on fire, for example, while it is not so easy to argue the government is responsible if the average person had a choice in the matter.

I get it: if government doesn't allow abortions, government should step up welfare. This is only relevant to what you yourself posted and not to anything that was posted in this thread before you arrived today.

Melissa your line of reasoning is like Aperture science - we do what we must because we can - and it is wrong and dangerous

Because parents CAN abort a downs/disabled/whatever baby doesn't mean they should or can.

Because they COULD have 'gotten rid' of the child doesn't mean that they shouldn't get support for that child if it is carried to term.

You can gauge a society by how it treats the least of all its peoples. If tomorrow we decide that all people called 'Melissa' are inferior its not right or moral to kill you because you would be perceived to inconvenience us.

Essentially abortion leads to eugenics.. which as I explained is already happening.

Manchu wrote:I get it: if government doesn't allow abortions, government should step up welfare. This is only relevant to what you yourself posted and not to anything that was posted in this thread before you arrived today.

It's relevant. Everything has a cost, and the question of who pays that cost is an important one that needs to be answered. With an abortion, the patient pays the cost either way because it is their choice in the matter. With the suggestion of abortion being banned, I find it unethical to force parents to pay the cost of something which they could have prevented but weren't allowed to.

Phototoxin wrote:Then what's stopping the mother-state aborting the inferior children (jews, slovaks... oh wait some EVIL BASTARD ALREADY TIRED THAT!)

Ignoring the godwin effect, that's a logical fallacy. I, at least, am not suggesting at the government should decide on who has an abortion . Actually, quite the opposite.