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.

On other websites there are discussions of the proposed law. Evidently, it doesn't cover abortion doctors as that is a legal act-illegal activities being the key.

I don't know, its a law for an issue that barely exists.

What, you mean actual news or current affair web sites?

Not the clearly more logical source here at dakka dakka ot?

Slarg232 wrote:On topic, I don't beleive this is write, and I doubt it will pass, even though I am pro-life.

I have always wondered, how differently things would be if this abortion debate had happened years ago and half of us were aborted by our parents. How many lives have each of us affected/been affected by? One girl I knew came from a family of bad people, drug users, alchohol problems, family abuse, the whole deal.... She saved my life, and her family is the sort where if abortion had been this popular back then, she wouldn't have been born....

Meh. I was a genetic coinflip away from being aborted. I still fully support the choice to have one.

mattyrm wrote:What, you mean actual news or current affair web sites?

Not the clearly more logical source here at dakka dakka ot?

Current affairs site noting news.

GalacticDefender wrote:

Mr Meatballs wrote:Good ol' American south. so civilised so educated.

I live in the south, and I am not proud to admit it. So many stupid people around here. And yes, it is just as bad as people make it sound.

There are just as many stupid people up north. The only difference our stupid people are more polite than yours. Damn Yankees.

Fafnir wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:On topic, I don't beleive this is write, and I doubt it will pass, even though I am pro-life.

I have always wondered, how differently things would be if this abortion debate had happened years ago and half of us were aborted by our parents. How many lives have each of us affected/been affected by? One girl I knew came from a family of bad people, drug users, alchohol problems, family abuse, the whole deal.... She saved my life, and her family is the sort where if abortion had been this popular back then, she wouldn't have been born....

Meh. I was a genetic coinflip away from being aborted. I still fully support the choice to have one.

Yeah thats my point, surely we all could have been, the point is, you arent sentient when your a ten week old foetus, but you ARE sentient when you are a grown woman. Why does a blob of brainless goo have more importance than a 15 year old girl who got raped by her Dad, or even an 18 year old who simply doesnt want a kid because it going to feth her life up? They should ALWAYS have a right to choose. Why should it be anybodys decision other than the mothers? Possibly the fathers to some degree as well maybe, but nobody sees this issue as black and white other than the brainwashed adherants of Christianity, because their faith (apparently) demands it.

I can understand people being pro-life, but not to the point of utter stupidity as per the Religious zealot.

Seriously, there are many pro-lifers, lots of them, but do any of them other than the fething redneck Jebus freak think that they should be able to force a 14 year old recently raped incest victim should be FORCED into having a child? Its a grand nonsense. I hope they ban abortions in the USA and everyone starts finding babies bodies in dumpsters when they put the garbage out. Can they not understand that human beings are stubborn and dont like their hands being forced? All this gak does is increase ptentially lethal backalley abortions or have people dump their kids in a skip.

Nobody is saying abortion is "super awesome" but the heartbreaking decision should only be down to the person it actually involves, and I feel the same way about everything, euthanasia is another good example. If my mother is rotting from cancer and she wants to end it all with a pill, who the feth else does that involve other than her and my Dad?

Im really not happy with random fethers trying to force their rules onto me, it makes me very angry.

So when does life grow enough to be protected Matty?

Should abortion be a legal procedure immediately prior to birth? (Disregarding health of the mother type stuff, of course.)

If you say no, congrats, you don't believe in an unlimited right to abortion.

Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?

Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.

mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?

Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.

So your point is when they give the appearance of feeling pain? So the law applies well then. What was your point again?

Kilkrazy wrote:What if the abortion is being performed because to allow the foetus to come to term will threaten the mother's life?

Why make the issue so one-sided?

If you accept that the fetus is a human life (even for purposes of this arguement), why do we allow the mother to kill the fetus to save her life, but don't allow the fetus to temporarily inconvenience the mother to save its own life?

mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?

Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.

So people with congenital analgesia are less important than people without it?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?

Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.

So people with congenital analgesia are less important than people without it?

That's a nice straw man you've got there.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What if the abortion is being performed because to allow the foetus to come to term will threaten the mother's life?

Why make the issue so one-sided?

If you accept that the fetus is a human life (even for purposes of this arguement), why do we allow the mother to kill the fetus to save her life, but don't allow the fetus to temporarily inconvenience the mother to save its own life?

Because, assuming you're in your right mind, nobody has the right to force you to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you're the only person who can donate marrow to save someone's life, you cannot and should not be forced to donate it. Why should a fetus be given greater power than someone already extant?*

*Depending on where you live, the preceding may or may not be true.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What if the abortion is being performed because to allow the foetus to come to term will threaten the mother's life?

Why make the issue so one-sided?

If you accept that the fetus is a human life (even for purposes of this arguement), why do we allow the mother to kill the fetus to save her life, but don't allow the fetus to temporarily inconvenience the mother to save its own life?

Actually I was making a joke to point out the absurdity of the proposed law.

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

However, accepting that it is for the sake of the argument, then I don't see the equality of a situation in which to allow a foetus to come to term will medically threaten the mother, and a situation in which it won't. Apart from anything, the foetus which kills its mother will be in danger of dying itself, owing to the removal of her life support function.

Nearly 1% of abortions are carried out after the 24 week limit and are usually due to this sort of medical situation.

Fafnir wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?

Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.

So people with congenital analgesia are less important than people without it?

That's a nice straw man you've got there.

It seems like a logical extension of the bolded.

mattyrm wrote:While you lot argue the toss in a pc manner, ill state the obvious.

It's religions fault.

You find me a sensible person who isn't religious who thinks this is anywhere near acceptable and ill show you a fething liar.

The only people who feel strongly enough about this issue to murder actual living people, are the staggeringly hypocritical followers of the desert god.

My loathing for them knows no bounds.

If my daughter was off for an abortion and she was merely verbally abused by one of them, they'd need a doctor themselves, but for major facial reconstruction not an abortion.

Many normal people feel strongly about the abortion issue, but none behave in as murderous or as aggressive a manner as the shower of gak that harp on about Jesus.

We're all fed up with you blaming anything you don't like on religion and tarring everyone with the same brush.

There are plenty of religious people who don't think this law is an acceptable idea.

... I appreciate that people are somewhat polarised on this/related issues, I would suggest perhaps counting to 10 and rereading what you're about to post before hitting submit.

We have, odds be damned, managed some semblance of discussion on serious, even some non zombie/WW II related (!), topics at times here, I've every faith...well.... small hope would be more accurate but... what the hell.. that we could even manage it again if, you know, we all try. Together. Like some crazed suicide and destruction driven cult.

..err... perhaps not like that exactly anyway, but I'm sure you get the idea.

It sure would be nice though if we could avoid making massive sweeping statements about people's faith/lack thereof/ people's general morals and intelligence and setting up only tangentially related arguments then.

At least try and focus your incandescent rage eh folks.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?

Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.

So people with congenital analgesia are less important than people without it?

That's a nice straw man you've got there.

It seems like a logical extension of the bolded.

Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What if the abortion is being performed because to allow the foetus to come to term will threaten the mother's life?

Why make the issue so one-sided?

If you accept that the fetus is a human life (even for purposes of this arguement), why do we allow the mother to kill the fetus to save her life, but don't allow the fetus to temporarily inconvenience the mother to save its own life?

Because, assuming you're in your right mind, nobody has the right to force you to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you're the only person who can donate marrow to save someone's life, you cannot and should not be forced to donate it. Why should a fetus be given greater power than someone already extant?*

*Depending on where you live, the preceding may or may not be true.

Really? Vaccinations are generally mandatory. Judges can and do force procedures on children against their parents' wishes. etc. etc.

rubiksnoob wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?

Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.

So people with congenital analgesia are less important than people without it?

That's a nice straw man you've got there.

It seems like a logical extension of the bolded.

Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".

I'm sure it'll freak you out to discover that a fetus is alive.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Because, assuming you're in your right mind, nobody has the right to force you to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you're the only person who can donate marrow to save someone's life, you cannot and should not be forced to donate it. Why should a fetus be given greater power than someone already extant?*

*Depending on where you live, the preceding may or may not be true.

Really? Vaccinations are generally mandatory. Judges can and do force procedures on children against their parents' wishes. etc. etc.

On children, yes, who have no capacity to consent to anything legally anyway.

On adults, no.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What if the abortion is being performed because to allow the foetus to come to term will threaten the mother's life?

Why make the issue so one-sided?

If you accept that the fetus is a human life (even for purposes of this arguement), why do we allow the mother to kill the fetus to save her life, but don't allow the fetus to temporarily inconvenience the mother to save its own life?

Because, assuming you're in your right mind, nobody has the right to force you to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you're the only person who can donate marrow to save someone's life, you cannot and should not be forced to donate it. Why should a fetus be given greater power than someone already extant?*

*Depending on where you live, the preceding may or may not be true.

Really? Vaccinations are generally mandatory. Judges can and do force procedures on children against their parents' wishes. etc. etc.

But yea I think we've got the essential issue that is the issue. When does life quantify as being sufficient to be protected as a human? Literally everything except the brightline standard of (protected level) life begins at life is a slippery slope.
Inception, medical viability, Matty's pain theory, all are differing standards, and all except the first one ebb and flow with our understanding of technology.

Kilkrazy wrote:

mattyrm wrote:While you lot argue the toss in a pc manner, ill state the obvious.

It's religions fault.

You find me a sensible person who isn't religious who thinks this is anywhere near acceptable and ill show you a fething liar.

The only people who feel strongly enough about this issue to murder actual living people, are the staggeringly hypocritical followers of the desert god.

My loathing for them knows no bounds.

If my daughter was off for an abortion and she was merely verbally abused by one of them, they'd need a doctor themselves, but for major facial reconstruction not an abortion.

Many normal people feel strongly about the abortion issue, but none behave in as murderous or as aggressive a manner as the shower of gak that harp on about Jesus.

We're all fed up with you blaming anything you don't like on religion and tarring everyone with the same brush.

There are plenty of religious people who don't think this law is an acceptable idea.

Of course there are, I never said there wasnt, or presumed that was the case.

I know lots of normal healthy Religious people, ones that dont ram it incessantly down your throat are far more common than ones who do.

What i said was, the people that are super aggressive and murderous about it (George Tillers killer was) are almost always strongly religious. They are.

Why are you fed up with it? Why does it upset you so much?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Didnt they just do a recent study and they catagorically proved that a foetus could feel nothing at all until at least 18 weeks or something?

Ill look into it when im not on my phone. Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

But im a bastard. I also think that people who have been on wellfare for more than 2 years should be forcibly sterilised, and their still living children under 16 should be liquidized and fed to their parents.

So people with congenital analgesia are less important than people without it?

That's a nice straw man you've got there.

It seems like a logical extension of the bolded.

Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".

I'm sure it'll freak you out to discover that a fetus is alive.

As are people with congenital analgesia.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

sebster wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I have always wondered, how differently things would be if this abortion debate had happened years ago and half of us were aborted by our parents.

If half of us had been aborted we wouldn't be here to be part of the debate. That's kind of how abortion works.

Well, duh.

One might suggest that the question that Slarg is asking is not what would have happened to the half of us that never existed, but what would have happened differently to the other half left alive.

Yes, exactly. It has plenty of relevence to the topic, and I do know what I am talking about (sometimes).

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Because, assuming you're in your right mind, nobody has the right to force you to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you're the only person who can donate marrow to save someone's life, you cannot and should not be forced to donate it. Why should a fetus be given greater power than someone already extant?*

*Depending on where you live, the preceding may or may not be true.

That isn't true anywhere. Anywhere there is a government, you are limited in what you can do. Want to smoke in your office? The government can (and has in many places) stop that. Recreational or self-prescribed medicines? Nope. Accept a loan with a high interest rate? Can't do that either. Heck, in the US you can't even make your own liquor.

Also, I am not advocating giving a fetus greater power. In fact, it is lesser power. If moms life is threatened (by medical reasons), she can kill the fetus. If the fetus' life is threatened (essentially by homicide), he has the right not to be killed. Very lopsided in fact.

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?

BTW, I think that Roe was wrongly decided (for a number of reasons) and that states should be able to decide the issue themselves. I would vote against abortion laws because:
1) They are inherently discriminatory; and
2) Taking a life is immoral, especially if the victim can't dispute the taking.

This probably makes me a religious nutter.

rubiksnoob wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".

I'm sure it'll freak you out to discover that a fetus is alive.

As are people with congenital analgesia.

I'm actually aware of that. I don't know if you think I'm not, or something.

Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

The point of differentiation as regards importance is the ability to feel, not the being alive, because, as we agree, fetuses are alive.

It follows that without further qualification, anyone with congenital analgesia is less important because they can't feel.

mattyrm wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

mattyrm wrote:While you lot argue the toss in a pc manner, ill state the obvious.

It's religions fault.

You find me a sensible person who isn't religious who thinks this is anywhere near acceptable and ill show you a fething liar.

The only people who feel strongly enough about this issue to murder actual living people, are the staggeringly hypocritical followers of the desert god.

My loathing for them knows no bounds.

If my daughter was off for an abortion and she was merely verbally abused by one of them, they'd need a doctor themselves, but for major facial reconstruction not an abortion.

Many normal people feel strongly about the abortion issue, but none behave in as murderous or as aggressive a manner as the shower of gak that harp on about Jesus.

We're all fed up with you blaming anything you don't like on religion and tarring everyone with the same brush.

There are plenty of religious people who don't think this law is an acceptable idea.

Of course there are, I never said there wasnt, or presumed that was the case.

I know lots of normal healthy Religious people, ones that dont ram it incessantly down your throat are far more common than ones who do.

What i said was, the people that are super aggressive and murderous about it (George Tillers killer was) are almost always strongly religious. They are.

Why are you fed up with it? Why does it upset you so much?

Because:

1. You have become like a broken record which always jumps back to the same place and repeats itself.
2. Everyone religious isn't the same. When you go on about hypocritical followers of the desert god or whatever, you are being rude to a lot of people including fellow forum members.
3. It doesn't in any way help advance the debate or solve the problem.

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Because, assuming you're in your right mind, nobody has the right to force you to do anything to your body that you don't consent to. If you're the only person who can donate marrow to save someone's life, you cannot and should not be forced to donate it. Why should a fetus be given greater power than someone already extant?*

*Depending on where you live, the preceding may or may not be true.

That isn't true anywhere. Anywhere there is a government, you are limited in what you can do. Want to smoke in your office? The government can (and has in many places) stop that. Recreational or self-prescribed medicines? Nope. Accept a loan with a high interest rate? Can't do that either. Heck, in the US you can't even make your own liquor.

You've either misread my post, or you're conflating the concept of not being allowed to do something to your body with being forced to do something to your body. They are two separate things, and not a one of the examples you listed is the latter.

biccat wrote:Also, I am not advocating giving a fetus greater power. In fact, it is lesser power. If moms life is threatened (by medical reasons), she can kill the fetus. If the fetus' life is threatened (essentially by homicide), he has the right not to be killed. Very lopsided in fact.

Reread my post. The extant person that I'm talking about is the guy who needs the marrow.

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?

BTW, I think that Roe was wrongly decided (for a number of reasons) and that states should be able to decide the issue themselves. I would vote against abortion laws because:
1) They are inherently discriminatory; and
2) Taking a life is immoral, especially if the victim can't dispute the taking.

This probably makes me a religious nutter.

You're vegan, right?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:Well if you paid attention to what you bolded, you'd have notice that he specified non-living people. (well, technically none living, but I'm assuming that he meant non-living) I'm pretty sure individuals with congenital analgesia would fall into the category of "living".

I'm sure it'll freak you out to discover that a fetus is alive.

As are people with congenital analgesia.

I'm actually aware of that. I don't know if you think I'm not, or something.

Point is, living people who can feel, are more important than none living things that cant. Seems simple to me.

The point of differentiation as regards importance is the ability to feel, not the being alive, because, as we agree, fetuses are alive.

It follows that without further qualification, anyone with congenital analgesia is less important because they can't feel.

What mattrym stated was that living people who can feel are more important than NON-LIVING people who can't. So going on that statement alone, you cannot justifiably state that according to that statement individuals afflicted with congenital analgesia are less important. Saying so would be wrong because, although they cannot feel, they are alive.