This Alabama abortion law

[Tony C]

Is this the thing where the women are doing a sex ban?

But they can still take it up the bum or use a vibrator

[Burney]

I do as well but not to outlaw it completely, the current UK law is perfectly reasonable at 24 weeks (i.e. when the embryo is viable)

Yes, although I have issues with the concept of viability as a measure of whether or not we have the right to end a human life.
There are plenty of people who aren't 'viable' without the support and care of others, but we tend not to use that as an excuse for killing them.

[IUFG]

There are plenty of people who aren't 'viable' without the support and care of others, but we tend not to use that as an excuse for killing them.

oh, people are often effectively euthanised during palliative care in the UK .
increasing amounts of morphine for pain relief, anyone?

[Burney]

oh, people are often effectively euthanised during palliative care in the UK .
increasing amounts of morphine for pain relief, anyone?

Sure. The key difference there , though, would be that they are at the end of their lives rather than the beginning.

[IUFG]

Sure. The key difference there , though, would be that they are at the end of their lives rather than the beginning.

Beginning. End.

Still a life. Or is it, merely, an existence?

[Burney]

No, it doesn't *obviously* begin at conception. I could argue that human life begins when the foetus is viable outside of the womb.

If I did you would have no logical counter argument other than 'no it doesn't'. Hence why this is such a difficult issue to resolve.

The meeting of gametes and the creation of a zygote is the sine qua non of life. Life is impossible without it. It is the start point whose usual end point is the birth of a human baby. To try and pretend there is any other point at which life begins is just silly, I'm afraid.

[WES]

The meeting of gametes and the creation of a zygote is the sine qua non of life. Life is impossible without it. It is the start point whose usual end point is the birth of a human baby. To try and pretend there is any other point at which life begins is just silly, I'm afraid.

A mass of cells that cannot breathe, think or exist in its own right is not human life. It may or may not one day become a human life.

And as I predicted, your response was nothing more than 'yes it does'. And mine was nothing more than 'no it doesn't'.

That's why it's pointless.

The valid point would be that there clearly is no consensus on access to abortion, there is no threat to our society or way of life from it and therefore it should be made legal and people can choose to do what is consistent with their personal values. Any one who thinks other than that is an appalling c*nt, I'm afraid.

[Burney]

You have conveniently left off 'that cannot exist outside the womb'.

Christ, this is like arguing with AFC East.

That's because the fact that it cannot survive outside the womb is completely irrelevant. The point at which children can survive outside the womb has transformed dramatically due to medical science. So was it OK to kill those foetuses before those advances, but it isn't now? Nothing has changed ethically, after all.
And presumably, by that logic, were medical science to advance to the point where a child can be kept alive at any point after conception, you would be forced to concede that all abortion would have to be made illegal?
That argument is nonsensical.

[IUFG]

That's because the fact that it cannot survive outside the womb is completely irrelevant. The point at which children can survive outside the womb has transformed dramatically due to medical science. So was it OK to kill those foetuses before those advances, but it isn't now? Nothing has changed ethically, after all.
And presumably, by that logic, were medical science to advance to the point where a child can be kept alive at any point after conception, you would be forced to concede that all abortion would have to be made illegal?
That argument is nonsensical.

Well, this could make things a whole lot more complicated

https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/14/human...ecade-8156458/

The Metro, I know, but...

[WES]

That's because the fact that it cannot survive outside the womb is completely irrelevant. The point at which children can survive outside the womb has transformed dramatically due to medical science. So was it OK to kill those foetuses before those advances, but it isn't now? Nothing has changed ethically, after all.
And presumably, by that logic, were medical science to advance to the point where a child can be kept alive at any point after conception, you would be forced to concede that all abortion would have to be made illegal?
That argument is nonsensical.

If you don't consider it to be relevant then respond saying that, rather than selecting part of the sentence and coming back with a glib reply.

Medical science can't make a mass of cells that has not formed a brain think. Your point is absurd.